View source for Liberalism

{{Short description|Political ideology based on individual rights and liberty}}
{{other uses|Liberal (disambiguation)}}
{{distinguish|Libertarianism}}
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{use dmy dates|date=July 2015}}
{{use British English|date=January 2014}}
{{liberalism sidebar}}
{{party politics}}

'''Liberalism''' is a [[Political philosophy|political]] and [[moral philosophy]] based on the [[Individual rights|rights of the individual]], [[liberty]], [[consent of the governed]], [[political equality]], the [[right to private property]], and [[equality before the law]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia
 | title = The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics
 | editor-last = McLean
 | editor-first = Iain
 | editor2-last = McMillan
 | editor2-first = Alistair
 | edition = 3rd
 | publisher = Oxford University Press
 | year = 2010
 | isbn = 978-0-19-920516-5
| oclc = 173498589
| quote = liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice.
}}</ref><ref name="wpt">{{cite book |quote=political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and for tradition in general, tolerance, and ... individualism. |first=John |last=Dunn |title=Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future |date=1993 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-0-521-43755-4|oclc=28111574}}</ref> Liberals espouse various and often mutually conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support [[private property]], [[market economies]], individual rights (including [[civil rights]] and [[human rights]]), [[liberal democracy]], [[secularism]], [[rule of law]], [[Economic freedom|economic]] and [[political freedom]], [[freedom of speech]], [[freedom of the press]], [[freedom of assembly]], and [[freedom of religion]].<ref name="Generally support">Generally support:
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UkVIYjezrF0C&q=liberalism+secularism |first=Nader |last=Hashemi |title=Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |quote=Liberal democracy requires a form of secularism to sustain itself |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-19-971751-4 |via=[[Google Books]]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=htuTnexZAo8C&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion&pg=PA1 |first=Kathleen G. |last=Donohue |title=Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer |series=New Studies in American Intellectual and Cultural History |publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] |quote=Three of them – freedom from fear, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion – have long been fundamental to liberalism. |isbn=978-0-8018-7426-0 |date=19 December 2003 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=[[Google Books]]}}
*{{cite news |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KBzHAAAAIAAJ&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion |title=The Economist, Volume 341, Issues 7995–7997 |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |quote=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 .... |year=1996 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=[[Google Books]]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ndAdGl8ScfcC&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion&pg=PA525 |first=Sheldon S. |last=Wolin |title=Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |quote=The most frequently cited rights included freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, property, and procedural rights |isbn=978-0-691-11977-9 |year=2004 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=[[Google Books]]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mQJgnEITPRIC&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion&pg=PA366 |first1=Edwin Brown |last1=Firmage |first2=Bernard G. |last2=Weiss |first3=John Woodland |last3=Welch |title=Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives |publisher=[[Eisenbrauns]] |quote=There is no need to expound the foundations and principles of modern liberalism, which emphasises the values of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion |isbn=978-0-931464-39-3 |year=1990 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=[[Google Books]]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/cyclopaediapoli00lalogoog |page=[https://archive.org/details/cyclopaediapoli00lalogoog/page/n758 760] |first=John Joseph |last=Lalor |author-link=John Joseph Lalor |title=Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States |publisher=Nabu Press |quote=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. |year=1883 |access-date=31 December 2007}}
*{{Cite web |title=Liberalism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism |access-date=2021-06-16 |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |language=en}}[[constitutional government]] and [[privacy rights]]
*{{Cite book |title=The Desk Encyclopedia of World History |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7394-7809-7 |editor-last=Wright |editor-first=Edmund |location=New York |pages=374}} 
</ref> Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant [[ideology]] of [[modern history]].<ref name=":1">Wolfe, p. 23.</ref><ref name="Adams 2011">{{cite book|last=Adams|first=Ian|title=Political Ideology Today|url=https://archive.org/details/politicalideolog0000adam/mode/2up?view=theater|url-access = registration|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/politicalideolog0000adam/page/10/mode/2up?view=theater|chapter-url-access = registration|edition=Second|series=Politics Today|year=2001|publisher=Manchester University Press|location=Manchester and New York|isbn=0-7190-6019-2|chapter=2: Liberalism and democracy}}</ref>{{rp|11}}

Liberalism became a distinct [[Political movement|movement]] in the [[Age of Enlightenment]], gaining popularity among [[Western world|Western]] philosophers and [[economist]]s. Liberalism sought to replace the [[Norm (social)|norms]] of [[Nobility|hereditary privilege]], [[state religion]], [[absolute monarchy]], the [[divine right of kings]] and [[traditional conservatism]] with [[representative democracy]], rule of law, and equality under the law. Liberals also ended [[mercantilist]] policies, [[Legal monopoly|royal monopolies]], and other [[trade barrier]]s, instead promoting [[free trade]] and marketization.<ref name="Gould, p. 3"/> The philosopher [[John Locke]] is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the ''[[social contract]]'', arguing that each man has a [[natural right]] to [[life, liberty and property]], and governments must not violate these [[rights]].<ref>{{cite book |quote=All mankind ... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions |first=John |last=Locke |author-link=John Locke |title=Second Treatise of Government}}</ref> While the [[Gladstonian liberalism|British liberal tradition]] emphasized expanding democracy, [[French liberalism]] emphasized rejecting [[authoritarianism]] and is linked to [[Nationalism|nation-building]].<ref name="Kirchner, p. 3">Kirchner, p. 3.</ref>

Leaders in the British [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688,<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/1688firstmodernr00stev |url-access=registration |title=1688: The First Modern Revolution |first=Steven |last=Pincus |year=2009 |publisher=[[Yale University Press]] |isbn=978-0-300-15605-8 |access-date=7 February 2013}}</ref> the [[American Revolution]] of 1776, and the [[French Revolution]] of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal [[sovereignty]]. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in [[Liberalism in Europe|Europe]] and [[Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America|South America]], and it was well-established alongside [[republicanism in the United States]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Milan |last=Zafirovski |title=Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GNlT9Qho0tAC&pg=PA237 |year=2007 |publisher=[[Brill Publishers|Brill]] |page=237 |isbn=978-90-04-16052-1 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> In [[Victorian Britain]], it was used to critique the political establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the people.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eddy |first1=Matthew Daniel |title=The Politics of Cognition: Liberalism and the Evolutionary Origins of Victorian Education |journal=British Journal for the History of Science |date=2017 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=677–699 |doi=10.1017/S0007087417000863 |pmid=29019300 |doi-access=free |issn=0007-0874 }}</ref> During the 19th and early 20th centuries, [[Liberalism in Turkey|liberalism in the Ottoman Empire]] and the [[Middle East]] influenced periods of reform, such as the [[Tanzimat]] and [[Al-Nahda]], and the rise of [[constitutionalism]], [[nationalism]], and [[secularism]]. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within [[Islam]], which continues to this day, leading to [[Islamic revivalism]]. Before 1920, the main ideological opponents of liberalism were [[communism]], [[conservatism]], and [[socialism]];<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Lta_DwAAQBAJ |title=Liberalism and Its Critics |last=Koerner |first=Kirk F. |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=1985 |isbn=978-0-429-27957-7 |location=London |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from [[fascism]] and [[Marxism–Leninism]] as new opponents. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further, especially in Western Europe, as liberal democracies found themselves as the winners in both [[world wars]]<ref>{{cite book |last=Conway |first=Martin |editor-last=Gosewinkel |editor-first=Dieter |title=Anti-liberal Europe: A Neglected Story of Europeanization |chapter=The Limits of an Anti-liberal Europe |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ECIfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA184 |year=2014 |publisher=[[Berghahn Books]] |page=184 |isbn=978-1-78238-426-7 |quote=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. |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> and the [[Cold War]].<ref>{{cite book|first1=Patrick|last1=Iber|title=Neither Peace Nor Freedom: The Cultural Cold War in Latin America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SqDXCgAAQBAJ|publisher=Harvard University Press|date=13 October 2015|isbn=978-0-674-28604-7|via=Google Books|pages=6}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fukuyama |first=Francis |date=1989 |title=The End of History? |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184 |journal=The National Interest |issue=16 |pages=3–18 |jstor=24027184 |issn=0884-9382}}</ref>

Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important [[Civil liberties|individual freedoms]], such as [[freedom of speech]] and [[freedom of association]]; an [[independent judiciary]] and public [[trial by jury]]; and the abolition of [[Aristocracy (class)|aristocratic]] privileges.<ref name="Gould, p. 3" /> Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights.<ref name="Worell470">Worell, Judith. ''Encyclopedia of women and gender, Volume I''. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001. {{ISBN|0-12-227246-3}}</ref> Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights, and global [[civil rights movements]] in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Other goals often accepted by liberals include [[universal suffrage]] and [[universal access to education]]. In Europe and North America, the establishment of [[social liberalism]] (often called simply [[Modern liberalism in the United States|''liberalism'']] in the United States) became a key component in expanding the [[welfare state]].<ref>[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180212050753/http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html |date=12 February 2018 }} by [[Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.]] (1956) from: ''The Politics of Hope'' (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962). "Liberalism in the U.S. usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any other country, save possibly Britain."</ref> 21st-century [[liberal parties]] continue to wield power and influence throughout the world. The fundamental elements of [[Modernity|contemporary society]] have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and [[parliament]]ary authority.<ref name="Gould, p. 3">Gould, p. 3.</ref>

==Definitions==
===Origins===
{{libertarianism sidebar|origins}}
''[[wikt:Liberal|Liberal]]'', ''[[wikt:Liberty|liberty]]'', ''[[wikt:Libertarianism|libertarian]]'', and ''[[libertine]]'' all trace their [[etymology]] to ''[[wikt:Liber|liber]]'', a [[Root (linguistics)|root]] from [[Latin]] that means "[[wikt:Free|free]]".<ref name="Gross, p. 5">Gross, p. 5.</ref> One of the first recorded instances of ''liberal'' occurred in 1375 when it was used to describe the [[liberal arts]] in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> 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.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/>

In the 16th-century [[Kingdom of England]], ''liberal'' could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> In ''[[Much Ado About Nothing]]'', [[William Shakespeare]] wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath ... confest his vile encounters".<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> With the rise of [[the Enlightenment]], the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> In 1815, the first use of ''liberalism'' appeared in English.<ref>Kirchner, pp. 2–3.</ref> In Spain, the ''[[Liberalism and radicalism in Spain|liberales]]'', the first group to use the liberal label in a political context,<ref>Palmer and Colton, p. 479.</ref> fought for decades to implement the [[Spanish Constitution of 1812]]. From 1820 to 1823, during the ''[[Trienio Liberal]]'', [[King Ferdinand VII]] was compelled by the ''liberales'' 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.<ref>Kirchner, Emil J. (1988). ''Liberal Parties in Western Europe''. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-521-32394-9}}. "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 ... ."</ref>

[[Yellow]] is the [[political colour]] most commonly associated with liberalism.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Adams |first1=Sean |url=https://archive.org/details/colordesignworkb0000ston/page/86 |title=Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design |last2=Morioka |first2=Noreen |last3=Stone |first3=Terry Lee |date=2006 |publisher=Rockport Publishers |isbn=1-59253-192-X |location=Gloucester, Mass. |pages=[https://archive.org/details/colordesignworkb0000ston/page/86 86] |oclc=60393965}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kumar |first1=Rohit Vishal |last2=Joshi |first2=Radhika |date=October–December 2006 |title=Colour, Colour Everywhere: In Marketing Too |journal=SCMS Journal of Indian Management |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=40–46 |issn=0973-3167 |ssrn=969272}}</ref><ref>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. [https://books.google.com/books?id=fFgxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA105 p.105] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080446/https://books.google.ca/books?id=fFgxBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA105 |date=6 December 2022 }}. {{isbn|9781443852838}}</ref> The United States differs from other countries in that conservatism is associated with red and [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberalism]] with blue.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design |last1=Adams |first1=Sean |last2=Morioka |first2=Noreen |last3=Stone |first3=Terry Lee |date=2006 |publisher=[[Rockport Publishers]] |isbn=159253192X |location=Gloucester, Mass. |pages=[https://archive.org/details/colordesignworkb0000ston/page/86 86] |oclc=60393965 |url=https://archive.org/details/colordesignworkb0000ston/page/86}}</ref>

===Modern usage and definitions===
In Europe and Latin America, ''liberalism'' means a moderate form of [[classical liberalism]] and includes both [[conservative liberalism]] ([[centre-right]] liberalism) and [[social liberalism]] ([[centre-left]] liberalism).<ref name="Nordsieck contents">{{cite web |url=http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/content.html |title=Content |date=2020 |website=Parties and Elections in Europe}}</ref> In North America, ''liberalism'' almost exclusively refers to social liberalism. The dominant Canadian party is the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]], and the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] is usually considered liberal in the United States.<ref>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."</ref><ref>Grigsby, pp. 106–07. [Talking about the Democratic Party] "Its liberalism is, for the most part, the later version of liberalism – modern liberalism."</ref><ref>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."</ref> In the United States, conservative liberals are usually called ''conservatives'' in a broad sense.<ref name="Friedman">{{cite book |editor-last=Cayla |editor-first=David |title=Populism and Neoliberalism |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pDAXEAAAQBAJ&dq=Neoliberalism+%22conservative+liberalism%22&pg=PA62 |date=2021 |page=62 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=9781000366709 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Slomp |editor-first=Hans |title=Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics, Volume 1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LmfAPmwE6YYC&q=EU+left-wing+liberal+parties |date=2011 |pages=106–108 |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |isbn=9780313391811 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref>

====Social liberalism====
{{see also|Social liberalism|Welfare state|Liberalism in the United States}}
Over time, the meaning of ''liberalism'' 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 to [[social liberalism]], a variety of liberalism that endorses a [[regulated market]] economy and the expansion of [[civil and political rights]], with the common good considered as compatible with or superior to the freedom of the individual.<ref>De Ruggiero, Guido (1959). ''The History of European Liberalism''. pp. 155–157.</ref>

According to the ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to [[limited government]] and ''[[laissez-faire]]'' economic policies."<ref>"Liberalism". ''Encyclopædia Britannica''.</ref> This variety of liberalism is also known as ''[[Modern liberalism in the United States|modern liberalism]]'' to distinguish it from ''classical liberalism'', which evolved into [[modern conservatism]]. In the United States, the two forms of liberalism comprise the two main poles of American politics, in the forms of ''[[modern American liberalism]]'' and  ''[[Conservatism in the United States|modern American conservatism]]''.<ref>Pease, Donald E.; Wiegman, Robyn (eds.) (2002). ''The Futures of American Studies''. Duke University Press. p. 518.</ref>

Some liberals, who call themselves ''classical liberals'', ''[[fiscal conservatives]]'', or ''[[Libertarianism in the United States|libertarians]]'', endorse fundamental liberal ideals but diverge from modern liberal thought on the grounds that [[economic freedom]] is more important than [[social equality]].<ref>Pena, David S. (2001). ''Economic Barbarism and Managerialism''. p. 35.</ref> Consequently, the ideas of [[individualism]] and ''laissez-faire'' economics previously associated with [[classical liberalism]] are key components of modern [[American conservatism]] and [[movement conservatism]], and became the basis for the emerging school of modern [[American libertarian]] thought.<ref>Rothbard, Murray (2006) [1973]. [http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard121.html "The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism"]. ''[[For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto]]''. [[Mises Institute]]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150618045238/http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard121.html |date=18 June 2015 }}. Retrieved 18 June 2015 – via LewRockewell.com</ref>{{better source needed|date=December 2020}} In this American context, ''liberal'' is often used as a pejorative.<ref>{{cite news |date=6 January 2012 |title=The failure of American political speech |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |url=https://www.economist.com/johnson/2012/01/06/the-failure-of-american-political-speech |access-date=1 September 2022 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>

This political philosophy is exemplified by enactment of major social legislation and welfare programs. Two major examples in the United States are [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s [[New Deal]] policies and later [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s [[Great Society]], as well as other accomplishments such as the [[Works Progress Administration]] and the [[Social Security Act]] in 1935, as well as the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]]. Modern liberalism, in the United States and other major Western countries, now includes issues such as [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex marriage]], [[Transgender rights in the United States|transgender rights]], the abolition of [[Capital punishment in the United States|capital punishment]], [[reproductive rights]] and other [[women's rights]], [[voting rights]] for all adult citizens, civil rights, [[environmental justice]], and government protection of the [[right to an adequate standard of living]].<ref>{{cite journal|author=Jeffries, John W.|title=The "New" New Deal: FDR and American Liberalism, 1937–1945|journal=Political Science Quarterly|volume=105|number=3|date=1990|pages=397–418|doi=10.2307/2150824|jstor=2150824}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-01-31 |title=Coretta's Big Dream: Coretta Scott King on Gay Rights |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coretta-scott-king_b_2592049 |access-date=2023-06-21 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/11/deep-partisan-divide-on-whether-greater-acceptance-of-transgender-people-is-good-for-society/ | title=Deep partisan divide on whether greater acceptance of transgender people is good for society | date=11 February 2022 }}</ref> National [[social services]], such as equal educational opportunities, access to health care, and transportation infrastructure are intended to meet the responsibility to promote the [[general welfare]] of all citizens as established by the [[United States Constitution]].

====Classical liberalism====
{{see also|Classical liberalism|Conservative liberalism}}
Classical liberalism is a [[political tradition]] and a [[History of liberalism|branch]] of liberalism that advocates [[free market]] and [[laissez-faire]] economics and [[civil liberties]] under the [[rule of law]], with special emphasis on individual autonomy, [[limited government]], [[economic freedom]], [[political freedom]] and [[freedom of speech]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Classical liberalism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/classical-liberalism |website=www.britannica.com |publisher=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=17 October 2023 |date=6 September 2023}}</ref> Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like [[social liberalism]], looks more negatively on [[social policies]], [[tax]]ation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates [[deregulation]].<ref>{{cite book| first1 = M. O. | last1 = Dickerson | last2 = Flanagan | first2 = Thomas | last3 = O'Neill| first3 = Brenda | title = An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach | date = 2009| page=129}}</ref>

In the context of current American politics of the present day, ''classical liberalism'' may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal".<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Desk Encyclopedia of World History |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7394-7809-7 |editor-last=Wright |editor-first=Edmund |location=New York |pages=370}}</ref> Despite this, classical liberals tend to reject [[Conservatism in the United States|the right]]'s higher tolerance for [[economic protectionism]] and [[Modern liberalism in the United States|the left's]] inclination for collective [[group rights]] due to classical liberalism's central principle of [[individualism]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Goodman |first1=John C. |title=Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism |url=https://www.goodmaninstitute.org/about/how-we-think/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalism-and-modern-conservatism/ |website=Goodman Institute |access-date=2 January 2022}}</ref> Additionally, in the United States ''classical liberalism'' is considered closely tied to, or synonymous with, [[American libertarianism]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-04-06 |title=Libertarianism vs. Classical Liberalism: Is there a Difference? |url=https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/06/libertarianism-vs-classical-liberalism-is-there-a-difference/ |access-date=2023-09-22 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Klein |first=Daniel B. |date=2017-05-03 |title=Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism: A Short Introduction {{!}} Daniel B. Klein |url=https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-and-classical-liberalism-a-short-introduction/ |access-date=2022-03-08 |website=fee.org |language=en}}</ref>

Until the [[Great Depression]] and the rise of social liberalism, classical liberalism was called [[economic liberalism]]. Later, the term was applied as a [[retronym]], to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.{{sfn|Richardson|2001|p=52}} By modern standards, in [[Liberalism in the United States|the United States]] the bare term ''liberalism'' often means social liberalism whereas in [[Liberalism in Europe|Europe]] and [[Liberalism in Australia|Australia]] it often means classical liberalism.<ref>{{cite news |last=Goldfarb |first=Michael |date=20 July 2010 |title=Liberal? Are we talking about the same thing? |language=en-GB |publisher=[[BBC News]] |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10658070 |access-date=6 August 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Greenberg |first=David |date=12 September 2019 |title=The danger of confusing liberals and leftists |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/12/stop-calling-bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-liberals/ |access-date=6 August 2020}}</ref>

Classical liberalism gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas dating at least as far back as the 16th century, within the Iberian, British, and Central European contexts, and it was foundational to the [[American Revolution]] and "American Project" more broadly.<ref>{{cite book |last=Douma |first=Michael |title=What is Classical Liberal History? |date=2018 |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-1-4985-3610-3}}</ref>{{sfn|Dickerson|Flanagan|O'Neill|2009|p=129}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Renshaw |first=Catherine |date=2014-03-18 |title=What is a 'classical liberal' approach to human rights? |url=http://theconversation.com/what-is-a-classical-liberal-approach-to-human-rights-24452 |access-date=2022-08-12 |website=The Conversation}}</ref> Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include [[John Locke]],<ref name="Steven M. Dworetz 1994">Steven M. Dworetz (1994). ''The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution''.</ref> [[Jean-Baptiste Say]], [[Thomas Malthus]], and [[David Ricardo]]. It drew on [[classical economics]], especially the economic ideas espoused by [[Adam Smith]] in Book One of ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', and on a belief in [[natural law]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Appleby |first=Joyce |author-link=Joyce Appleby |title=Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=83HlqTJjLcgC&pg=PA58 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |date=1992 |page=58 |isbn=978-0674530133}}</ref> In contemporary times, [[Friedrich Hayek]], [[Milton Friedman]], [[Ludwig von Mises]], [[Thomas Sowell]], [[George Stigler]], [[Larry Arnhart]], [[Ronald Coase]] and [[James M. Buchanan]] are seen as the most prominent advocates of classical liberalism;<ref>{{cite book |last=Dilley |first=Stephen C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAIQOVWz2hEC |title=Darwinian Evolution and Classical Liberalism: Theories in Tension |date=2013-05-02 |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-0-7391-8107-2 |pages=13–14}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Peters |first=Michael A. |date=2022-04-16 |title=Hayek as classical liberal public intellectual: Neoliberalism, the privatization of public discourse and the future of democracy |journal=Educational Philosophy and Theory |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=443–449 |doi=10.1080/00131857.2019.1696303 |s2cid=213420239 |issn=0013-1857|doi-access=free}}</ref> however, other scholars have made reference to these contemporary thoughts as ''[[neoclassical liberalism]]'', distinguishing them from 18th-century classical liberalism.<ref name="Mayne 1999 p. 124">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. {{ISBN|0275961516}}.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ishiyama |first1=John T. |title=21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook |last2=Breuning |first2=Marijke |collaboration=Ellen Grigsby |publisher=SAGE Publications, Inc. |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-4129 6901-7 |pages=596–603 |chapter=Neoclassical liberals}}</ref>

== Philosophy ==
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 in [[classical antiquity]] and [[History of China#Imperial China|Imperial China]].<ref name="BevirSAGE"/><ref name="FungCambridge"/> The [[List of Roman Emperors|Roman Emperor]] [[Marcus 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".<ref>Antoninus, p. 3.</ref> Scholars have also recognised many principles familiar to contemporary liberals in the works of several [[Sophists]] and the ''Funeral Oration'' by [[Pericles]].<ref name="Young, pp. 25–6">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=25–26}}.</ref> 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.<ref name="Young, p. 24">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=24}}.</ref>

=== Major themes ===
{{individualism sidebar|philosophies}}
Although all liberal doctrines possess a common heritage, scholars frequently assume that those doctrines contain "separate and often contradictory streams of thought".<ref name="Young, p. 24"/> The objectives of [[List of liberal theorists|liberal 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", including [[Classical liberalism|classical]], [[egalitarian]], [[Economic liberalism|economic]], [[Social liberalism|social]], the [[welfare state]], [[ethical]], [[humanist]], [[deontological]], [[Perfectionism (philosophy)|perfectionist]], [[Democracy|democratic]], and [[institution]]al, to name a few.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=25}}.</ref> Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions.

Political philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] identified the common strands in liberal thought as [[individualist]], egalitarian, [[meliorist]] and [[universalist]]. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social [[collectivism]]; the egalitarian element assigns the same [[Morality|moral]] 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 local [[cultural]] differences.<ref name="Gray, p. xii">Gray, p. xii.</ref> The meliorist element has been the subject of much controversy, defended by thinkers such as [[Immanuel Kant]], who believed in human progress, while suffering criticism by thinkers such as [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who instead believed that human attempts to improve themselves through social [[cooperation]] would fail.<ref>Wolfe, pp. 33–36.</ref>

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 and [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian theory]], although sometimes liberals even request support from scientific and religious circles.<ref name="Gray, p. xii"/> Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought:

* believing in equality and [[individual liberty]]
* supporting private property and individual rights
* supporting the idea of limited constitutional government
* recognising the importance of related values such as [[Pluralism (political philosophy)|pluralism]], [[toleration]], autonomy, [[bodily integrity]], and [[Consent of the governed|consent]]<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=45}}.</ref>

=== Classical and modern ===
{{see also|Age of Enlightenment}}

==== John Locke and Thomas Hobbes ====
{{See also|John Locke|Thomas Hobbes}}
[[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct [[ideology]] by the English philosopher [[John Locke]], generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism.<ref name="Taverne, p. 18">Taverne, p. 18.</ref><ref name="Godwin et al., p. 12">Godwin et al., p. 12.</ref> [[Thomas Hobbes]] attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a ''[[state of nature]]'' — a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the state — he constructed the idea of a ''[[social contract]]'' that individuals enter into to guarantee their security and, in so doing, form the State, concluding that only an [[absolute monarchy|absolute 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 (the [[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]), Locke developed the then-radical notion that government acquires [[Consent of the governed|consent from the governed]], which has to be constantly present for the government to remain [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimate]].<ref>Copleston, Frederick. ''A History of Philosophy: Volume V''. New York: Doubleday, 1959. {{ISBN|0-385-47042-8}} pp. 39–41.</ref> While adopting Hobbes's idea of a state of nature and social contract, Locke nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a [[tyrant]], 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]] and [[private property]]—required forming a "sovereign" authority with universal jurisdiction.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=30–31}}</ref>

His influential ''[[Two Treatises]]'' (1690), the foundational text of liberal ideology, outlined his major ideas. Once humans moved out of their [[State of nature|natural state]] and formed [[societies]], Locke argued, "that which begins and actually constitutes any [[political 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".<ref name="Locke Two Treatises 1947">{{cite book|last=Locke|first=John|author-link=John Locke|title=Two Treatises of Government|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.503178/page/n5/mode/2up|year=1947|publisher=Hafner Publishing Company|location=New York}}</ref>{{rp|170}} The stringent insistence that lawful government did not have a [[supernatural]] basis was a sharp break with the dominant theories of governance, which advocated the [[divine right of kings]]<ref>Forster, p. 219.</ref> and echoed the earlier thought of [[Aristotle]]. 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".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zvesper |first=Dr John |title=Nature and Liberty |date=4 March 1993 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=9780415089234 |pages=93 |language=en}}</ref>

Locke had other intellectual opponents besides Hobbes. In the ''First Treatise'', Locke aimed his arguments first and foremost at one of the doyens of 17th-century English conservative philosophy: [[Robert Filmer]]. Filmer's ''Patriarcha'' (1680) argued for the divine right of kings by appealing to [[biblical]] teaching, claiming that the authority granted to [[Adam]] by [[God]] gave successors of Adam in the male line of descent a right of dominion over all other humans and creatures in the world.<ref>Copleston, Frederick. ''A History of Philosophy: Volume V''. New York: Doubleday, 1959. {{ISBN|0-385-47042-8}}, p. 33.</ref> However, Locke disagreed so thoroughly and obsessively with Filmer that the ''First Treatise'' is almost a sentence-by-sentence refutation of ''Patriarcha''. Reinforcing his respect for consensus, Locke argued that "conjugal society is made up by a voluntary compact between men and women".<ref name="Kerber 1976">{{cite journal|last=Kerber|first=Linda|author-link = Linda Kerber|year=1976|title=The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment-An American Perspective|journal=American Quarterly|volume=28|issue=2|doi=10.2307/2712349|jstor=2712349|pages=187–205}}</ref> Locke maintained that the grant of dominion in [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] was not to [[Male privilege|men over women]], as Filmer believed, but to humans over animals.<ref name="Kerber 1976"/> Locke was not a [[feminist]] 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 into [[social theory]].<ref name="Kerber 1976"/>

[[File:Areopagitica 1644bw gobeirne.png|thumb|upright=0.9|[[John Milton]]'s ''[[Areopagitica]]'' (1644) argued for the importance of [[freedom of speech]].]]
Locke also originated the concept of the [[separation of church and state]].<ref name=AFP>Feldman, Noah (2005). ''Divided by God''. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29 ("It took [[John Locke]] to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")</ref> Based on the social contract principle, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual [[conscience]], as this was something [[rational]] 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.<ref>Feldman, Noah (2005). ''Divided by God''. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29</ref> In his ''Letters Concerning Toleration'', he also formulated a general defence for [[religious 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 "[[Supremacism#Religious|true religion]]" would not have the desired effect because belief cannot be compelled by [[Religious violence|violence]];
# Coercing [[religious uniformity]] would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.<ref>[[McGrath, Alister]]. 1998. ''Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought.'' Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 214–15.</ref>

Locke was influenced by the liberal ideas of Presbyterian politician and poet [[John Milton]], who was a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms.<ref>{{Citation | first = Heinrich | last = Bornkamm | language = de | contribution = Toleranz. In der Geschichte des Christentums | title = Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart | year = 1962}}, 3. Auflage, Band VI, col. 942</ref> Milton argued for [[disestablishment]] as the only effective way of achieving broad [[Religious toleration|toleration]]. Rather than force a man's conscience, the government should recognise the persuasive force of the gospel.<ref>Hunter, William Bridges. ''A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8'' (East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980). pp. 71, 72. {{ISBN|0-8387-1841-8}}.</ref> As assistant to [[Oliver Cromwell]], Milton also drafted a constitution of the [[Independent politician|independents]] (''Agreement of the People''; 1647) that strongly stressed the equality of all humans as a consequence of democratic tendencies.<ref>{{Citation | first = W | last = Wertenbruch | contribution = Menschenrechte | title = Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart | language = de | place = Tübingen, DE | year = 1960}}, 3. Auflage, Band IV, col. 869</ref> In his ''[[Areopagitica]]'', 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 "[[Marketplace of ideas|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 and [[self-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.<ref name="Young 30">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=30}}.</ref> This power could be formed in the framework of a [[civil 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.<ref name="Young 30"/> 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.<ref name="Young 30" /> Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with [[Thomas Paine]] writing, "Government even in its best state is a necessary evil."<ref name="Young, p. 31">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=31}}.</ref>

==== James Madison and Montesquieu ====
{{Capitalism sidebar}}
As part of the project to limit the powers of government, liberal theorists such as [[James Madison]] and [[Montesquieu]] conceived the notion of [[separation of powers]], a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the [[Executive (government)|executive]], [[legislative]] and [[judicial]] branches.<ref name="Young, p. 31" /> Governments had to realise, liberals maintained, that legitimate government only exists with the [[consent 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 and [[revolution]], if needed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=32}}.</ref> Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have supported limited [[Constitution#Governmental constitutions|constitutional government]] while advocating for [[Social services|state 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 a [[Economic interventionism|greater role for government]] in the administration of economic affairs.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=32–33}}.</ref> 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 emanated [[Consent of the governed|from human interactions]], not from [[Divine law|divine will]].<ref name="Gould, p. 4">Gould, p. 4.</ref> Many liberals were openly hostile to [[religious 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.<ref name="Gould, p. 4"/>

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 (from [[Adam Smith]] to [[John 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.<ref name="Young, p. 33">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=33}}.</ref> Mill's ''[[On 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".<ref name="Young, p. 33"/> Support for ''laissez-faire'' [[capitalism]] is often associated with this principle, with [[Friedrich Hayek]] arguing in ''[[The Road to Serfdom]]'' (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.<ref>Wolfe, p. 74.</ref>

==== Coppet Group and Benjamin Constant ====
[[File:Marie Eléonore Godefroid - Portrait of Mme de Staël.jpg|thumb|left|upright|[[Madame de Staël]]]] 
The development into maturity of modern classical in contrast to ancient liberalism took place before and soon after the French Revolution. One of the historic centres of this development was at [[Coppet Castle]] near [[Geneva]], where the eponymous [[Coppet group]] gathered under the aegis of the exiled writer and [[Salon (gathering)|salonnière]], [[Madame de Staël]], in the period between the establishment of [[Napoleon]]'s First Empire (1804) and the [[Bourbon Restoration in France|Bourbon Restoration]] of 1814–1815.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Tenenbaum |first1= Susan |title= The Coppet Circle. Literary Criticism as Political Discourse |journal= History of Political Thought |date= 1980 |volume= 1 |issue= 2 |pages= 453–473}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Lefevere |first1= Andre |title= Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame |date= 2016 |publisher= Taylor & Francis |page= 109}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Fairweather |first1= Maria |title= Madame de Stael |date= 2013 |publisher= Little, Brown Book Group}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Hofmann |first1= Etienne |last2= Rosset |first2= François |title= Le Groupe de Coppet. Une constellation d'intellectuels européens |date= 2005 |publisher= Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes}}</ref> The unprecedented concentration of European thinkers who met there was to have a considerable influence on the development of nineteenth-century liberalism and, incidentally, [[romanticism]].<ref>{{cite book |last1= Jaume |first1= Lucien |title= Coppet, creuset de l'esprit libéral: Les idées politiques et constitutionnelles du Groupe de Madame de Staël |date= 2000 |publisher= Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille |page= 10}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Delon |first1= Michel |editor1-last= Francillon |editor1-first= Roger |title= Histoire de la littérature en Suisse romande t.1 |date= 1996 |publisher= Payot |chapter= Le Groupe de Coppet}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The Home of French Liberalism|publisher=The Coppet Institute|url=https://coppetinstitute.org|access-date=2020-02-20}}</ref> They included [[Wilhelm von Humboldt]], [[Jean de Sismondi]], [[Charles Victor de Bonstetten]], [[Prosper de Barante]], [[Henry Peter Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux|Henry Brougham]], [[Lord Byron]], [[Alphonse de Lamartine]], Sir [[James Mackintosh]], [[Juliette Récamier]] and [[August Wilhelm Schlegel]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Making Way for Genius: The Aspiring Self in France from the Old Regime to the New|author=Kete, Kathleen|publisher= Yale University Press|date= 2012|isbn= 978-0-300-17482-3}}</ref>

[[File:Roche - Portrait de Benjamin Constant (1767-1830), écrivain et homme politique - P1679 - Musée Carnavalet.jpg|thumb|[[Benjamin Constant]], a Franco-Swiss political activist and theorist]]
Among them was also one of the first thinkers to go by the name of "liberal", the [[Edinburgh University]]-educated Swiss Protestant, [[Benjamin Constant]], who looked to the United Kingdom rather than to [[ancient 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".<ref name="AncientModern">{{cite web |url=http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/ancients.html |title=Constant, Benjamin, 1988, 'The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns' (1819), in The Political Writings of Benjamin Constant, ed. Biancamaria Fontana, Cambridge, pp. 309–28 |publisher=Uark.edu |access-date=2013-09-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120805184450/http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/ancients.html |archive-date=5 August 2012 |df=dmy-all}}</ref> The Liberty of the Ancients was a participatory [[Republicanism|republican]] liberty,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bertholet |first=Auguste |date=2021 |title=Constant, Sismondi et la Pologne |url=https://www.slatkine.com/fr/editions-slatkine/75250-book-05077807-3600120175625.html |journal=Annales Benjamin Constant |volume=46 |pages=65–76}}</ref> which gave the citizens the right to influence politics directly through debates and votes in the public assembly.<ref name="AncientModern"/> 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.<ref name="AncientModern"/>

In contrast, the Liberty of the Moderns was based on the possession of [[civil 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 elect [[Legislator|representatives]] who would deliberate in Parliament on the people's behalf and would save citizens from daily political involvement.<ref name="AncientModern"/> 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.<ref>{{cite book|title=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|editor=Hofmann, Étienne|publisher=Oxford, The [[Voltaire Foundation]] and Lausanne, Institut Benjamin Constant|date=1982|language=fr|isbn= 0-7294-0280-0}}</ref> The British philosopher and historian of ideas, Sir [[Isaiah Berlin]], has pointed to the debt owed to Constant.<ref>{{cite book|author=Rosen, Frederick |title=Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill |date=2005 |publisher=Routledge |page=251}} According to Berlin, the most eloquent of all defenders of freedom and privacy [was] Benjamin Constant, who had not forgotten the Jacobin dictatorship.</ref>

==== British liberalism ====
[[Liberalism in the United Kingdom|Liberalism in Britain]] was based on core concepts such as [[classical economics]], [[free trade]], ''[[laissez-faire]]'' government with minimal intervention and taxation, and a [[balanced budget]]. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. Writers such as [[John Bright]] and [[Richard Cobden]] opposed aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to developing a class of [[yeoman]] farmers.<ref name="Vincent, pp. 29–30">{{cite book|last=Vincent|first=Andrew|title=Modern Political Ideologies|url=https://archive.org/details/modernpoliticali0000vinc/mode/2up?view=theater|url-access = registration |year=1992|publisher=Blackwell|location=Oxford, UK, & Cambridge, US|isbn=0-631-16451-0|pages=29–30}}</ref>

[[File:T.H. Green.png|thumb|left|upright|[[T. H. Green]], an influential [[List of liberal theorists|liberal philosopher]] who established in ''Prolegomena to Ethics'' (1884) the first major foundations for what later became known as [[positive liberty]] and in a few years, his ideas became the [[Liberal welfare reforms|official policy]] of the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]] in [[Liberalism in the United Kingdom|Britain]], precipitating the rise of [[social liberalism]] and the modern [[welfare state]]]]
Beginning in the late 19th century, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as [[positive liberty]] to distinguish it from the prior [[negative liberty|negative version]], and it was first developed by [[British philosophy|British philosopher]] [[T. H. Green]]. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by [[self-interest]], emphasising instead the complex circumstances involved in the evolution of our [[moral character]].<ref name="Adams 1998">{{cite book|last=Adams|first=Ian|title=Ideology and Politics in Britain Today|series = Politics Today | url=https://archive.org/details/ideologypolitics0000adam/mode/2up?view=theater|url-access = registration| chapter-url = https://archive.org/details/ideologypolitics0000adam/page/52/mode/2up?view=theater | chapter-url-access = registration|year=1998|publisher=Manchester University Press|location=Manchester & New York|isbn=0-7190-5055-3|chapter=New Liberals to Liberal Democrats}}</ref>{{rp|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 genuine [[choice]].<ref name="Adams 1998"/>{{rp|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: {{blockquote|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.<ref>Wempe, p. 123.</ref>|sign=|source=}}

Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a [[duty]] to promote the [[common good]].<ref name="Adams 1998"/>{{rp|55}} His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as [[Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse]] and [[John A. Hobson]]. In a few years, this ''New Liberalism'' had become the essential social and political programme of the Liberal Party in Britain,<ref name="Adams 1998"/>{{rp|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 expand [[Universal suffrage|suffrage rights]], liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the [[Voting|democratic decision-making process]] were liable to the "[[tyranny of the majority]]", a concept explained in Mill's ''On Liberty'' and ''[[Democracy in America]]'' (1835) by [[Alexis de Tocqueville]].<ref name="Young, p. 36">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=36}}.</ref> As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the [[Minority rights|rights of minorities]].<ref name="Young, p. 36"/>

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".<ref>Wolfe, p. 63.</ref> All forms of liberalism assume in some basic sense that individuals are equal.<ref name="auto">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=39}}.</ref> In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume they all possess the same right to liberty.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=39–40}}.</ref> In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are [[Equality before the law|equal subjects before the law]].<ref name="Young, p. 40">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=40}}.</ref> Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge in their understanding of equality. American philosopher [[John Rawls]] emphasised the need to ensure equality under the law and the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their [[Motivation|aspirations]] in life.<ref name="Young, p. 40"/> Libertarian thinker [[Robert Nozick]] disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of [[Equal opportunity|Lockean equality]].<ref name="Young, p. 40"/>

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 stable [[social order]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=42–43}}.</ref> Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek [[conformity]] and homogeneity in how people think. Their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that [[Conflict resolution|harmonises and minimises conflicting views]] but still allows those views to exist and flourish.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=43}}.</ref> 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.<ref name="Young, p. 44">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=44}}.</ref> From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to [[religious toleration]], with [[Baruch Spinoza]] condemning "the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars".<ref name="Young, p. 44"/> Toleration also played a central role in the [[Kantianism|ideas 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.<ref name="Young, p. 44"/>

=== Liberal economic theory ===
{{main|Economic liberalism}}

[[File:Liberalescoruneses.JPG|thumb|300px|Monument to the liberals of the 19th century in Agra del Orzán neighborhood, [[La Coruña]], [[Galicia (Spain)|Galicia]] ([[Spain]])]]
[[Adam Smith]]'s ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', published in 1776, followed by the French liberal economist [[Jean-Baptiste Say]]'s treatise on ''[[Say's Political Economy|Political Economy]]'' published in 1803 and expanded in 1830 with practical applications, were to provide most of the ideas of economics until the publication of [[John Stuart Mill]]'s ''Principles'' in 1848.<ref name="Mills">{{cite book|last=Mills|first=John|author-link=John Mills (businessman)|title=A Critical History of Economics|url=https://archive.org/details/criticalhistoryo0000mill/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater|year=2002|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|location=Basingstoke|isbn=0-333-97130-2}}</ref>{{rp|63, 68}} Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of [[Pricing|prices]] and [[wealth distribution]], and the [[Economic policy|policies]] the state should follow to maximise [[wealth]].<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|64}}

Smith wrote that as long as [[Supply and demand|supply, demand]], [[price]]s and [[Competition (economics)|competition]] were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, maximises society's wealth<ref>''[https://books.google.com/books?id=KpWg1DYxRTwC&dq=%22public+good%22&pg=PA81 The Wealth of Nations] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080447/https://books.google.com/books?id=KpWg1DYxRTwC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22public+good%22&sa=X#v=onepage&q=%22public%20good%22 |date=6 December 2022 }}'', Strahan and Cadell, 1778</ref> 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.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|64}}

Smith assumed that workers could be [[Salary|paid]] as low as was necessary for their survival, which [[David Ricardo]] and [[Thomas Robert Malthus]] later transformed into the "[[iron law of wages]]".<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|65}} His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and [[international trade]], which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|66}} He also opposed restrictive [[trade preference]]s, state grants of [[monopolies]] and [[employers' organisation]]s and [[trade union]]s.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|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.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24695923|title=Adam Smith on markets, competition and violations of natural liberty|date=March 2016|access-date=8 January 2025|publisher=Oxford University Press|last=Kurz|first=Heinz D.|journal=Cambridge Journal of Economics |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=615–638 |doi=10.1093/cje/bev011 |jstor=24695923|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
Other than that government should be limited to defence, [[public work]]s and the [[administration of justice]], financed by [[Income tax|taxes based on income]].<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|68}} Smith was one of the progenitors of the idea, which was long central to classical liberalism and has resurfaced in the [[globalisation]] literature of the later 20th and early 21st centuries, that free trade promotes peace.<ref>See, e.g., [[Donald Markwell]], ''John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace'', Oxford University Press, 2006, chapter 1.</ref> Smith's economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the [[Poor Relief Act 1662|Poor Relief Act]] that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of the [[East India Company]] over India in 1858.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|69}}

In his ''Treatise'' (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 of [[Joseph 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 with [[Say's law]], or the law of markets which may be summarised as "[[Aggregate supply]] creates its own [[aggregate 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 by [[John 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.<ref name="clower92">{{Harv|Clower|2004|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tzzClShefiYC&pg=PA92 p. 92]}}</ref><ref>Bylund, Per. [https://twitter.com/perbylund/status/883692795583746049 "Say's Law (the Law of Markets)"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308022031/https://twitter.com/perbylund/status/883692795583746049 |date=8 March 2021 }}.</ref> Say argues that "products are paid for with products" (1803, p.&nbsp;153) or "a glut occurs only when too much resource is applied to making one product and not enough to another" (1803, pp.&nbsp;178–179).<ref>[http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/say.htm "Information on Jean-Baptiste Say"].{{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326021523/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/say.htm|date=26 March 2009}}</ref>

Related reasoning appears in the work of [[John 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".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mill |first=James |date=1808 |title=Commerce Defended |chapter-url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1668&layout=html |chapter=VI: Consumption |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224092944/https://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1668&layout=html |archive-date=24 February 2021 |page=81}}</ref> In addition to Smith's and Say's legacies, [[Thomas Malthus]]' theories of population and [[David Ricardo]]'s [[Iron law of wages]] became central doctrines of classical economics.<ref name="Mills" />{{rp|76}} Meanwhile, Jean-Baptiste Say challenged Smith's [[labour 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 wrote ''[[An Essay on the Principle of Population]]'' in 1798,<ref name="Mills" />{{rp|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.<ref name="Mills" />{{rp|72}}

Several liberals, including Adam Smith and [[Richard Cobden]], argued that the free exchange of goods between nations would lead to world peace.<ref>Erik Gartzke, "[http://www.columbia.akadns.net/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%206-7/Economic%20Freedom%20and%20Peace%20--%20Garzke.pdf Economic Freedom and Peace]", in ''Economic Freedom of the World: 2005 Annual Report'' (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2005). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181227133203/http://www.columbia.akadns.net/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%206-7/Economic%20Freedom%20and%20Peace%20--%20Garzke.pdf |date=27 December 2018 }}.</ref> 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.<ref>Michael Doyle, ''Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism'' (New York: Norton, 1997), p. 237 ({{ISBN|0-393-96947-9}}).</ref> Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the state's welfare and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, combining his [[Little 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Howe |first1=Anthony |last2=Morgan |first2=Simon |title=Rethinking nineteenth-century liberalism: Richard Cobden bicentenary essays |year=2006 |publisher=[[Ashgate Publishing]] |isbn=978-0-7546-5572-5 |pages=231, 239 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Eqp4Hae4bmUC |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> [[Utilitarianism]] was seen as a [[Legitimacy (political)|political justification]] for implementing [[economic 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 a ''laissez-faire'' approach.<ref name="Richardson 2001">{{cite book|first=James L.|last=Richardson|year=2001|title=Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power|location=Boulder, Colorado|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|isbn=155587939X}}</ref>{{rp|32}} The central concept of utilitarianism, developed by [[Jeremy Bentham]], was that [[public policy]] should seek to provide "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to [[Poverty reduction|reduce poverty]], it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.<ref name="Mills" />{{rp|76}} His philosophy proved highly influential on government policy and led to increased Benthamite attempts at government [[social control]], including [[Robert Peel]]'s [[Metropolitan Police]], [[prison reform]]s, the [[workhouse]]s and [[History of psychiatric institutions|asylums]] for the mentally ill.

==== Keynesian economics ====
{{main|Keynesian economics}}
[[File:Keynes 1933.jpg|thumb|left|upright|[[John Maynard Keynes]], one of the most influential economists of modern times and whose ideas, which are still [[2008–09 Keynesian resurgence|widely felt]], formalized modern liberal economic policy.]]

During the [[Great Depression]], the English economist [[John 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.<ref>See studies of Keynes by, e.g., [[Roy Harrod]], [[Robert Skidelsky]], Donald Moggridge, and [[Donald Markwell]].</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Pressman |first=Steven |title=Fifty Great Economists |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-415-13481-1 |pages=96–100 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |location=London}}</ref> Keynes was deeply critical of the British government's [[austerity]] measures [[Great Depression in the United Kingdom|during the Great Depression]]. He believed [[budget deficit]]s were a good thing, a product of [[recession]]s. 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".<ref name="Cassidy2011">{{cite magazine |last=Cassidy |first=John |author-link=John Cassidy (journalist) |title=The Demand Doctor |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |date=10 October 2011 |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/the-demand-doctor}}</ref> At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, Keynes published ''The 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 the [[multiplier effect]].<ref name="Skid30s">{{cite book |last=Skidelsky |first=Robert |title=John Maynard Keynes: 1883–1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-330-48867-9 |pages=494–500, 504, 509–510 |publisher=Pan MacMillan Ltd}}</ref>

[[File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg|thumb|upright|The [[Great Depression]], with its periods of worldwide economic hardship, formed the backdrop against which the [[Keynesian Revolution]] took place (the image is [[Dorothea Lange]]'s ''[[Migrant Mother]]'' depiction of destitute [[pea-pickers]] in California, taken in March 1936).]]

Keynes's ''[[magnum opus]]'', ''[[The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money]]'', was published in 1936,<ref>{{cite book |first=Keith |last=Tribe |title=Economic careers: economics and economists in Britain, 1930–1970 |date=1997 |page=61}}</ref> and served as a theoretical justification for the [[Economic interventionism|interventionist policies]] Keynes favoured for tackling a recession. The ''General Theory'' challenged the earlier [[neo-classical economics|neo-classical economic]] paradigm, which had held that the [[Market (economics)|market]] would naturally establish [[full employment]] equilibrium if it were unfettered by government interference. [[Classical economists]] believed in [[Say's law]], which states that "[[supply creates its own demand]]" and that in a [[free 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 of [[price 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 is [[rational]] 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."<ref name="Cassidy2011"/> 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 boost [[industrial production]].<ref>Palmer and Colton, p. 808.</ref>

=== Liberal feminist theory ===
{{main|Liberal feminism}}
[[File:Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie (c. 1797).jpg|thumb|upright|[[Mary Wollstonecraft]], widely regarded as the pioneer of [[liberal feminism]]]]
[[Liberal feminism]], the dominant tradition in [[History of feminism|feminist history]], is an [[individualistic]] form of [[feminist theory]] that focuses on women's ability to maintain their equality through their actions and choices. Liberal feminists hope to eradicate all barriers to [[gender equality]], claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order.<ref>Jensen, p. 2.</ref> They argue that society believes women are naturally [[Gender inequality|less intellectually and physically capable]] than men; thus, it tends to [[Sexism|discriminate against women]] in the [[Sexism in academia|academy]], the forum and the [[Occupational sexism|marketplace]]. 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.<ref name="Tong, Rosemarie 1989">Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction. Oxon, United Kingdom: Unwin Human Ltd. Chapter 1</ref>

British [[List of women philosophers|philosopher]] [[Mary Wollstonecraft]] (1759–1797) is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with ''[[A Vindication of the Rights of Woman]]'' (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society.<ref>Falco, pp. 47–48.</ref> In her writings, such as ''A 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".<ref name="Tong, Rosemarie 1989"/>

[[John Stuart Mill]] was also an early proponent of feminism. In his article ''[[The 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.<ref>John Stuart Mill: critical assessments, Volume 4, By [[John Cunningham Wood]]</ref><ref>Mill, J.S. (1869) [http://www.constitution.org/jsm/women.htm ''The Subjection of Women''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429185554/http://www.constitution.org/jsm/women.htm |date=29 April 2015 }}, Chapter 1</ref> 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".<ref>Mill, John Stuart (1869). The Subjection of Women (1869 first ed.). London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer. Retrieved 10 December 2012.</ref> 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".<ref name="Tong, Rosemarie 1989"/> 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 book ''The Subjection of Women'', Mill argues that three major parts of women's lives are hindering them: society and gender construction, education and marriage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/|title=Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy|last=Brink|first=David|date=9 October 2007|publisher=Stanford University|access-date=1 October 2016}}</ref>

[[Equity feminism]] is a form of liberal feminism discussed since the 1980s,<ref>{{cite book |title=Social Feminism |first=Naomi |last=Black |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kDYqAAAAYAAJ |year=1989 |publisher=[[Cornell University Press]] |isbn=9780801422614 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref><ref name=Halfmann>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q83kxhOsgxYC&pg=PA79 |title=Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic |editor-first=Peter J. |editor-last=Katzenstein |chapter=3. Social Change and Political Mobilization in West Germany |page=79 |first=Jost |last=Halfmann |quote=Equity-feminism differs from equality-feminism |year= 1989|publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-0-8014-9595-3 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> specifically a kind of classically liberal or libertarian feminism.<ref name=Stanford>{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/#EquFem |title=Liberal Feminism |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=18 October 2007 |access-date=24 February 2016}} (revised 30 September 2013)</ref> [[Steven Pinker]], an [[evolutionary psychologist]], defines equity feminism as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology".<ref>{{cite book |last=Pinker |first=Steven |title=The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature |url=https://archive.org/details/blankslatemodern00pink |url-access=registration |isbn=0-670-03151-8 |publisher=Viking |year=2002 |page=[https://archive.org/details/blankslatemodern00pink/page/341 341]}}</ref> Barry Kuhle asserts that equity feminism is compatible with [[evolutionary psychology]] in contrast to [[Who Stole Feminism?|gender feminism]].<ref>{{cite journal |journal=[[Evolutionary Psychology (journal)|Evolutionary Psychology]] |url=http://www.epjournal.net/articles/evolutionary-psychology-is-compatible-with-equity-feminism-but-not-with-gender-feminism-a-reply-to-eagly-and-wood-2011/ |url-status=usurped |archive-date=16 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120116120314/http://www.epjournal.net/articles/evolutionary-psychology-is-compatible-with-equity-feminism-but-not-with-gender-feminism-a-reply-to-eagly-and-wood-2011/ |title=Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism |date=2011 |first=Barry X. |last=Kuhle}}</ref>

=== Social liberal theory ===
{{main|Social liberalism}}
[[File:Jean Charles Simonde de Sismondi (1773-1842).png|thumb|upright|left|[[Sismondi]], who wrote the first critique of the free market from a liberal perspective in 1819]]
[[Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de Sismondi]]'s ''New 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 by [[John Stuart Mill]] and [[Karl Marx]] among many others, had a profound influence on both liberal and socialist responses to the failures and contradictions of industrial society.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stewart |first1=Ross E. |title=Sismondi's Forgotten Ethical Critique of Early Capitalism |journal=[[Journal of Business Ethics]] |date=1984 |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=227–234|doi=10.1007/BF00382924 |s2cid=154967384}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Spiegel |first1=Henry William |title=The Growth of Economic Thought |date=1991 |publisher=Duke University Press |pages=302–303}}</ref><ref name="Gareth">{{cite book |last1=Stedman Jones |first1=Gareth |editor1-last=Aprile |editor1-first=Sylvie |editor2-last=Bensimon |editor2-first=Fabrice |title=La France et l'Angleterre au XIXe siècle. Échanges, représentations, comparaisons |chapter=Saint-Simon and the Liberal origins of the Socialist critique of Political Economy |date=2006 |publisher=Créaphis |pages=21–47}}</ref> By the end of the 19th century, the [[Classical liberalism#Evolution of core beliefs|principles of classical liberalism]] were being increasingly challenged by downturns in [[economic growth]], a growing perception of the [[Diseases of poverty|evils of poverty]], unemployment and relative deprivation present within modern industrial cities, as well as the agitation of [[organised labour]]. The ideal of the [[Self-made man|self-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 by [[industrialisation]] and ''laissez-faire'' capitalism came from conservatives concerned about social balance, although [[socialism]] later became a more important force for change and reform. Some [[Victorian literature|Victorian writers]], including [[Charles Dickens]], [[Thomas Carlyle]] and [[Matthew Arnold]], became early influential critics of social injustice.<ref name = "Richardson 2001"/>{{rp|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 an [[equal opportunity]] for success.<ref name="eatwell">{{cite book |last1=Eatwell |first1=Roger |last2=Wright |first2=Anthony |title=Contemporary political ideologies |publisher=[[Continuum International Publishing Group]] |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-8264-5173-6}}</ref>

[[File:John Stuart Mill by London Stereoscopic Company, c1870.jpg|thumb|upright|[[John Stuart Mill]], whose ''[[On Liberty]]'' greatly influenced 19th-century liberalism]]
[[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 1859 ''[[On Liberty]]'' addressed the nature and limits of the [[Power (philosophy)|power]] that can be legitimately exercised by society over the [[individual]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Mill |first=John Stuart |author-link=John Stuart Mill |title=[[On Liberty]] |publisher=Penguin Classics |date=2006 |isbn=978-0-14-144147-4 |pages=90–91}}</ref> He gave an impassioned defence of free speech, arguing that free [[discourse]] is a [[necessary 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 and [[tyranny 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".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mill |first=John Stuart |author-link=John Stuart Mill |title=[[On Liberty]] |publisher=Penguin Classics |date=2006 |isbn=978-0-14-144147-4 |pages=10–11}}</ref>

His definition of liberty, influenced by [[Joseph Priestley]] and [[Josiah Warren]], was that the [[individual]] ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others.<ref>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. [http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=harp;cc=harp;rgn=full%20text;idno=harp0024-5;didno=harp0024-5;view=image;seq=00693;node=harp0024-5%3A1 Cornell.edu].</ref> However, although Mill's initial [[Philosophy and economics|economic philosophy]] supported [[free market]]s and argued that [[progressive tax]]ation penalised those who worked harder,<ref>[http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_51_fr.pdf IREF | Pour la liberte economique et la concurrence fiscale] (PDF) {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327011315/http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_51_fr.pdf |date=27 March 2009 }}</ref> he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his ''Principles of Political Economy'' in defence of a socialist outlook and defending some socialist causes,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mill |first1=John Stuart |last2=Bentham |first2=Jeremy |editor-last=Ryan |editor-first=Alan |title=Utilitarianism and other essays |publisher=[[Penguin Books]] |year=2004 |location=London |isbn=978-0-14-043272-5 |page=[https://archive.org/details/utilitarianismot00mill/page/11 11] |url=https://archive.org/details/utilitarianismot00mill/page/11}}</ref> 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 was [[T. 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.<ref>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</ref> 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.<ref>[[Michael Freeden]], ''The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform'' (Oxford UP, 1978).</ref> The New Liberals, including intellectuals like L. T. Hobhouse and [[John A. Hobson]], saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favourable social and economic circumstances.<ref name="Adams 2011" />{{rp|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.<ref>The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, p. 599</ref> It supports a [[mixed economy]] that includes [[public property|public]] and private property in [[capital good]]s.<ref name="Stanislao G. Pugliese 1999. p. 99">{{cite book |first=Stanislao G. |last=Pugliese |url=https://archive.org/details/carlorossellisoc00pugl |title=Carlo Rosselli: socialist heretic and antifascist exile |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |date=1999 |page=99|isbn=9780674000537 }}</ref><ref name="Noel W. Thompson 2006. pp. 60–1">{{cite book |first=Noel W. |last=Thompson |title=Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884–2005 |edition=2nd |location=Oxon, England; New York, New York |publisher=[[Routledge]] |date=2006 |pages=60–61}}</ref> 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]] and [[Chantal Mouffe]].<ref>Nadia Urbinati. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=YoS6bMf4toQC J.S. Mill's political thought: a bicentennial reassessment] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080447/https://books.google.com/books?id=YoS6bMf4toQC&printsec=frontcover |date=6 December 2022 }}''. Cambridge, England, UK: [[Cambridge University Press]], 2007 p. 101.</ref> Other important social liberal figures include Guido Calogero, [[Piero Gobetti]], Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and [[R. H. Tawney]].<ref name="ref72">Steve Bastow, James Martin. ''[http://research.gold.ac.uk/1882/ Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181227181430/http://research.gold.ac.uk/1882/ |date=27 December 2018 }}''. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: [[Edinburgh University Press]], Ltd, 2003. p. 72.</ref> [[Liberal socialism]] has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.<ref name="ref72" />

=== Anti-state liberal theory ===
{{See also|Polycentric law|Voluntaryism|Panarchy (political philosophy)|Neoclassical liberalism|Anarcho-capitalism}}[[File:Gustave de Molinari.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Gustave de Molinari]]]]
[[File:Die Gartenlaube (1863) b 269.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Julius Faucher]]]]
[[Classical liberalism]] advocates [[free trade]] under the rule of law. In contrast, the "anti-state liberal tradition", as described by [[Ralph 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 to [[anarcho-capitalism]]. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of [[privatizing]] the protection of individual liberty and property was the French philosopher [[Jakob Mauvillon]] in the 18th century. Later in the 1840s, [[Julius Faucher]] and [[Gustave de Molinari]] advocated the same. In his essay ''The 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".<ref>Raico, Ralph (2004) [https://www.mises.org/story/1787 ''Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th century''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090610035217/http://www.crea.polytechnique.fr/index.htm |date=10 June 2009 }} Ecole Polytechnique, [http://www.crea.polytechnique.fr/index.htm Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090610035217/http://www.crea.polytechnique.fr/index.htm |date=10 June 2009 }}, Unité associée au CNRS</ref>

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.<ref name="Molinari-1849">Molinari, Gustave de (1849) [http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm The Production of Security] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000023/http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm |date=27 September 2007 }} (trans. J. Huston McCulloch). Retrieved 15 July 2006.</ref> The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of [[Herbert Spencer]] and thinkers such as [[Paul Émile de Puydt]] and [[Auberon Herbert]]. However, the first person to use the term anarcho-capitalism was [[Murray Rothbard]]. In the mid-20th century, Rothbard synthesized elements from the [[Austrian School]] of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American [[individualist anarchist]]s [[Lysander Spooner]] and [[Benjamin Tucker]] (while rejecting their [[labour theory of value]] and the norms they derived from it).<ref>"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, {{ISBN|978-0-631-17944-3}}, p. 290</ref> Anarcho-capitalism advocates the elimination of the state in favour of [[individual sovereignty]], [[private property]] and [[free markets]]. [[Anarcho-capitalist]]s believe that in the absence of [[statute]] (law by [[decree]] or [[legislation]]), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "[[voluntary society]]").<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Morris |first=Andrew |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |year=2008 |publisher=[[SAGE Publishing|SAGE]]; [[Cato Institute]] |location=Thousand Oaks, CA |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n8 |isbn=978-1-4129-6580-4 |oclc=750831024 |lccn=2008009151 |pages=13–14 |chapter=Anarcho-Capitalism}}</ref><ref name="Stringham51">Edward Stringham, ''Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice,'' [https://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&dq=anarcho-capitalism+libertarian&pg=PA51 p. 51] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080458/https://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&pg=PA51&dq=anarcho-capitalism+libertarian&sa=X&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=anarcho-capitalism%20libertarian |date=6 December 2022 }}.</ref>

In a theoretical [[anarcho-capitalist]] society, [[law enforcement]], [[court]]s and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through [[taxation]]. [[Money]] and other [[goods and services]] would be privately and competitively provided in an [[open market]]. Anarcho-capitalists say personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under [[tort]] and [[contract]] law rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under what they describe as "political monopolies".<ref name="libertarianpapers">[http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-3.pdf "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001010127/http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-3.pdf |date=1 October 2018 }} Libertarian Papers VOL. 3, ART. NO. 3 (2011)</ref> 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".<ref>Rothbard, Murray. For A New Liberty. [https://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp 12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111213124557/http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp |date=13 December 2011 }}</ref> Although enforcement methods vary, this pact would recognize [[self-ownership]] and the [[non-aggression principle]] (NAP).

== History ==
{{main|History of liberalism}}
<!---- This section should be a summary of the article "History of liberalism" according with WP:SUMMARY. ---->
{{cleanup|section|reason=Needs better presentation and content summarization|date=May 2017}}
[[File:John Locke.jpg|thumb|upright|[[John Locke]] was the first to develop a liberal philosophy, including the [[right to private property]] and the [[consent of the governed]].]]
Isolated strands of liberal thought had existed in [[Eastern philosophy]] since the Chinese [[Spring and Autumn period]]<ref name=Murray >Rothbard, 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) at [https://mises.org/daily/1967 mises.org] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220713/http://mises.org/daily/1967 |date=8 November 2014 }}</ref> and [[Western philosophy]] since the [[Ancient Greeks]]. The economist [[Murray Rothbard]] suggested that Chinese [[Taoist]] philosopher [[Laozi]] was the first libertarian,<ref name="Murray"/> likening Laozi's ideas on government to [[Friedrich Hayek]]'s theory of [[spontaneous order]].<ref>Rothbard, Murray (2005). "The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition", ''Mises Daily'', (5 December 2005) (original source unknown) at [https://mises.org/daily/1967 mises.org] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220713/http://mises.org/daily/1967 |date=8 November 2014 }}</ref> These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology by the English philosopher [[John Locke]], generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism.<ref name="Taverne, p. 18"/><ref name="Godwin et al., p. 12"/><ref name="FungCambridge">{{cite book |last1=Fung |first1=Edmund S. K. |title=The Intellectual Foundations of Chinese Modernity: Cultural and Political Thought in the Republican Era |date=2010 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-139-48823-5 |page=130 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7muduLXtSGMC&pg=PA130 |access-date=16 May 2017 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref><ref name="BevirSAGE">{{cite book |last1=Bevir |first1=Mark |title=Encyclopedia of Political Theory: A–E, Volume 1 |year=2010 |publisher=[[SAGE Publications]] |isbn=978-1-4129-5865-3 |page=164 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wVIoCtB3m74C&pg=PA164 |access-date=19 May 2017 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> The first major signs of liberal politics emerged in modern times. These ideas began to coalesce at the time of the [[English Civil War]]. The [[Levellers]], a largely ignored minority political movement that primarily consisted of [[Puritans]], [[Presbyterians]], and [[Quakers]], called for [[Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom|freedom of religion]], frequent convening of parliament and equality under the law. The [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 enshrined [[parliamentary sovereignty]] and the [[right of revolution]] in Britain and was referred to by author [[Steven Pincus]] as the "first modern liberal revolution".<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/1688firstmodernr00stev |url-access=registration |title=1688: The First Modern Revolution |first=Steven |last=Pincus |year=2009 |publisher=[[Yale University Press]] |isbn=978-0-300-15605-8 |access-date=7 February 2013}}</ref> The development of liberalism continued throughout the 18th century with the burgeoning Enlightenment ideals of the era. This period of profound intellectual vitality questioned old traditions and influenced several [[European monarchies]] throughout the 18th century. Political tension between England and its [[American colonies]] grew after 1765 and the [[Seven Years' War]] over the issue of [[taxation without representation]], culminating in the [[American Revolutionary War]] and, eventually, the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]]. After the war, the leaders debated about how to move forward. The [[Articles of Confederation]], written in 1776, now appeared inadequate to provide security or even a functional government. The [[Confederation Congress]] called a [[Philadelphia Convention|Constitutional Convention]] in 1787, which resulted in the writing of a new [[Constitution of the United States]] establishing a [[Federation|federal]] government. In the context of the times, the Constitution was a republican and liberal document.<ref>[[John Roberts (historian)|Roberts, J.M.]] ''The Penguin History of the World''. New York: Penguin Group, 1992. {{ISBN|0-19-521043-3}} p. 701.</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Milan |last=Zafirovski |title=Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GNlT9Qho0tAC |year=2007 |publisher=[[Brill Publishers|Brill]] |pages=237–38 |isbn=978-90-04-16052-1 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> It remains the oldest liberal governing document in effect worldwide.

[[File:Montesquieu 1.png|thumb|upright|[[Montesquieu]], who argued for the [[separation of powers|separation of the powers of government]]]]
The two key events that marked the triumph of liberalism in France were the [[abolition 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 the [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]] in August, itself based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence from 1776.<ref>{{cite book |first=Jon |last=Meacham |title=Thomas Jefferson: President and Philosopher |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tvBMBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT131 |year=2014|publisher=[[Random House]] |page=131 |isbn=978-0-385-38751-4}}</ref> During the [[Napoleonic Wars]], the French brought Western Europe the liquidation of the [[feudal system]], the liberalization of [[property law]]s, the end of [[Manorialism|seigneurial dues]], the abolition of [[guild]]s, the legalization of [[divorce]], the disintegration of [[Jewish ghettos in Europe|Jewish ghettos]], the collapse of the [[Spanish Inquisition|Inquisition]], the end of the [[Holy Roman Empire]], the elimination of church courts and religious authority, the establishment of the [[metric system]] and equality under the law for all men.<ref>Palmer and Colton, pp. 428–29.</ref> His most lasting achievement, the [[Napoleonic code|Civil Code]], served as "an object of emulation all over the globe"<ref>Lyons, p. 94.</ref> but also perpetuated further discrimination against women under the banner of the "natural order".<ref>Lyons, pp. 98–102.</ref>

The development into maturity of classical liberalism took place before and after the French Revolution in Britain.<ref name="Vincent, pp. 29–30"/> [[Adam Smith]]'s ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication of [[John Stuart Mill]]'s ''Principles'' in 1848.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|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.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|64}} The [[radicalism (historical)|radical liberal movement]] began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and [[popular sovereignty]]. Radicals like [[Richard Price]] and [[Joseph Priestley]] saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of [[English Dissenters|Protestant Dissenters]], the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.<ref>Turner, p. 86</ref>{{full citation needed|date=August 2023}}

In [[Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America|Latin America]], liberal unrest dates back to the 18th century, when liberal agitation in Latin America led to [[Spanish American wars of independence|independence]] from the imperial power of Spain and Portugal. The new regimes were generally liberal in their political outlook and employed the philosophy of [[positivism]], which emphasized the truth of modern science, to buttress their positions.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/cult/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212190612/http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/cult/assimilation_and_transformation_of_positivism_in_latin_america.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=12 February 2015 |jstor=2707981 |title=Assimilation and Transformation of Positivism in Latin America |journal=[[Journal of the History of Ideas]] |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=515–522 |last1=Ardao |first1=Arturo |year=1963 |doi=10.2307/2707981|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In the United States, a [[American Civil War|vicious war]] ensured the integrity of the nation and the abolition of slavery in the [[Southern United States|South]]. Historian [[Don H. Doyle]] has argued that the Union victory in the [[American Civil War]] (1861–1865) greatly boosted the course of liberalism.<ref>{{cite book |first=Don H. |last=Doyle | author-link = Don H. Doyle |title=The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War |date=2014}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2023}} In the 19th century, [[English people|English]] liberal [[Political philosophy|political philosophers]] were the most influential in the global tradition of liberalism.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Caldwell |first1=Wallace E. |title=History of the World |last2=Merrill |first2=Edward H. |publisher=The Greystone Press |year=1964 |volume=1 |location=[[United States]] |pages=428}}</ref>

During the 19th and early 20th century, in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, liberalism influenced periods of reform, such as the [[Tanzimat]] and [[Al-Nahda]]; the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism; and different intellectuals and religious groups and movements, like the [[Young Ottomans]] and [[Islamic Modernism]]. Prominent of the era were [[Rifa'a al-Tahtawi]], [[Namık Kemal]] and [[İbrahim 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. Many [[Muslim]]s saw them as foreign influences on the [[Muslim world]]. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by Middle Eastern states.<ref name="Abdelmoula">{{cite book |last1=Abdelmoula |first1=Ezzeddine |title=Al Jazeera and Democratization: The Rise of the Arab Public Sphere |year=2015 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-1-317-51847-1 |pages=50–52 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vP7qBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA50 |access-date=7 May 2017 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref><ref>Roderic. H. Davison, ''Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774–1923 – The Impact of the West'', University of Texas Press, 1990, pp. 115-116.</ref> These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day. This led to [[Islamic revivalism]].<ref name="LindgrenRoss">{{cite book |last1=Lindgren |first1=Allana |last2=Ross |first2=Stephen |title=The Modernist World |year=2015 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-1-317-69616-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YFvLCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA440 |access-date=6 May 2017 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref>

[[File:La Liberté guidant le peuple - Eugène Delacroix - Musée du Louvre Peintures RF 129 - après restauration 2024.jpg|thumb|The iconic painting ''[[Liberty Leading the People]]'' by [[Eugène Delacroix]], a tableau of the [[July Revolution]] in 1830]]
[[Abolitionist]] and [[suffrage]] movements spread, along with representative and democratic ideals. France established an [[French Third Republic|enduring republic]] in the 1870s. However, nationalism also spread rapidly after 1815. A mixture of liberal and nationalist sentiments in [[Liberalism and radicalism in Italy|Italy]] 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, the [[Holy See|Vatican]] launched a counter-crusade against liberalism. [[Pope Pius IX]] issued the ''[[Syllabus of Errors]]'' in 1864, condemning liberalism in all its forms. In many countries, liberal forces responded by [[Suppression of the Society of Jesus|expelling 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 like [[Charles Dickens]], [[Thomas Carlyle]] and [[Matthew Arnold]] were early influential critics of social injustice.<ref name = "Richardson 2001"/>{{rp|36–37}}

[[File:Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg.jpg|thumb|upright|As a [[liberal nationalist]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hx5000.sh?{hnro}=911547&{kieli}=su&{haku}=kaikki |title=Edustajamatrikkeli |language=fi |trans-title= |publisher=Eduskunta |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120212180625/http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hx5000.sh?%7Bhnro%7D=911547&%7Bkieli%7D=su&%7Bhaku%7D=kaikki |archive-date=2012-02-12}}</ref> [[K. J. Ståhlberg]] (1865–1952), the [[President of Finland]], anchored the state in [[liberal democracy]], guarded the fragile germ of the [[rule of law]], and embarked on internal reforms.<ref>{{cite web |first=Juha |last=Mononen |title=War or Peace for Finland? Neoclassical Realist Case Study of Finnish Foreign Policy in the Context of the Anti-Bolshevik Intervention in Russia 1918–1920 |url=https://tampub.uta.fi/handle/10024/80491 |date=2 February 2009 |publisher=[[University of Tampere]] |access-date=25 August 2020 |archive-date=7 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150607035630/http://tampub.uta.fi/handle/10024/80491 |url-status=dead}}</ref>]]

Liberalism gained momentum at the beginning of the 20th century. The bastion of [[autocracy]], the [[Nicholas II|Russian Tsar]], was overthrown in the [[February Revolution|first phase]] of the [[Russian Revolution]]. The Allied victory in the [[First World War]] and the collapse of four empires seemed to mark the triumph of liberalism across the European continent, not just among the [[Allies of World War I|victorious allies]] but also in Germany and the newly created states of [[Eastern 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, national [[self-determination]], free market economics, representative and responsible government, free trade, unionism, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes through a new body, the [[League of Nations]]".

In the Middle East, liberalism led to constitutional periods, like the Ottoman [[First Constitutional Era (Ottoman Empire)|First]] and [[Second Constitutional Era]] and the [[Persian Constitutional Revolution|Persian constitutional period]], but it declined in the late 1930s due to the growth and opposition of [[Islamism]] and [[pan-Arab]] [[Arab nationalism|nationalism]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kurzman|first1=Charles|title=Liberal Islam: A Source Book|year=1998|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-511622-9|page=10|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4n8HSe9SfXMC&pg=PA10|access-date=25 May 2017}}</ref><ref name="Moaddel1">{{cite book|last1=Moaddel|first1=Mansoor|title=Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse|year=2005|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-53333-9|page=4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dk6BLopmn3gC&pg=PA4}}</ref><ref name="lapidus">{{cite book |title=A History of Islamic Societies |last=Lapidus |first=Ira Marvin |year=2002 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-77933-3 |page=496 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I3mVUEzm8xMC&pg=PA496}}</ref><ref name="LorentzIran">{{cite book|last1=Lorentz|first1=John H.|title=The A to Z of Iran|year=2010|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=978-1-4617-3191-7|page=224|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oV9WwxXbCB8C&pg=PA224|access-date=9 May 2017}}</ref><ref name="LindgrenRoss"/> However, many intellectuals advocated liberal values and ideas. Prominent liberals were [[Taha Hussein]], [[Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed]], [[Tawfiq al-Hakim]], [[Abd El-Razzak El-Sanhuri]] and [[Muhammad Mandur]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hanssen|first1=Jens|last2=Weiss|first2=Max|title=Arabic Thought beyond the Liberal Age: Towards an Intellectual History of the Nahda|year=2016|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-1-107-13633-5|page=299|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dPF7DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA299|access-date=10 May 2017}}</ref>

[[File:FDR 1944 Color Portrait.jpg|thumb|left|upright|[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]]]
In the United States, [[Modern liberalism in the United States|modern liberalism]] traces its history to the popular presidency of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], who initiated the [[New Deal]] in response to the [[Great Depression in the United States|Great Depression]] and won an [[List of Presidents of the United States|unprecedented four elections]]. The [[New Deal coalition]] established by Roosevelt left a strong legacy and influenced many future American presidents, including [[John F. Kennedy]].<ref>Alterman, p. 32.</ref> Meanwhile, the definitive liberal response to the Great Depression was given by the British economist [[John Maynard Keynes]], who had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s.<ref>{{cite book|last=Pressman|first=Steven|title=Fifty Great Economists|year=1999|isbn=978-0-415-13481-1|pages=96–100|publisher=London: routledge|location=London}}</ref> 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 of [[fascism]] as an ideology and a movement against liberalism and [[communism]], especially in [[Nazi Germany]] and [[Kingdom of Italy|Italy]].<ref>Heywood, pp. 218–26.</ref> The rise of fascism in the 1930s eventually culminated in [[World War II]], the deadliest conflict in human history. The [[Allies of World War II|Allies]] prevailed in the war by 1945, and their victory set the stage for the [[Cold War]] between the [[Communist state|Communist]] [[Eastern Bloc]] and the liberal [[Western Bloc]].

[[Liberalism in Iran|In Iran]], liberalism enjoyed wide popularity. In April 1951, the [[National Front (Iran)|National Front]] became the governing coalition when democratically elected [[Mohammad Mosaddegh]], a liberal nationalist, took office as the [[Prime Minister of Iran|Prime Minister]]. However, his way of governing conflicted with Western interests, and he was removed from power in a [[1953 Iranian coup d'état|coup on 19 August 1953]]. The coup ended the dominance of liberalism in the country's politics.<ref name="jrisen">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html|work=The New York Times|title=Secrets of History: The C.I.A. in Iran|author=James Risen|date=16 April 2000|access-date=3 November 2006|author-link=James Risen}}</ref><ref>''Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran'' (March 1954). p. iii.</ref><ref name="CN-IC-01">{{cite book|title=Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization|year=2007|publisher=I.B.Tauris|isbn=978-1-84511-347-6|pages=775 of 1082|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NQnpQNKeKKAC&pg=PA775}}</ref><ref name="FP 2013">{{cite journal|title=CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup|first=Malcolm|last=Bryne|date=18 August 2013|journal=Foreign Policy |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/19/cia-admits-it-was-behind-irans-coup/}}</ref><ref>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 [https://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html "The C.I.A. in Iran"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130125113825/http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html |date=25 January 2013 }} by ''The New York Times''.</ref>

Among the various regional and national movements, the [[civil rights movement]] in the United States during the 1960s strongly highlighted the liberal efforts for [[Social equality|equal rights]].<ref>Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 178.</ref> The [[Great Society]] project launched by [[President of the United States|President]] [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] oversaw the creation of [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] and [[Medicaid]], the establishment of [[Head Start Program|Head Start]] and the [[Job Corps]] as part of the [[War on Poverty]] and the passage of the landmark [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], an altogether rapid series of events that some historians have dubbed the "Liberal Hour".<ref>Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 5.</ref>

[[File:Nizhny Novgorod. Anti-Corruption Rally (26 March 2017).jpg|thumb|The [[2017–2018 Russian protests]] were organized by Russia's liberal opposition.]]
The Cold War featured extensive ideological competition and several [[proxy war]]s, but the widely feared [[World War III]] between the Soviet Union and the United States never occurred. While communist states and liberal democracies competed against one another, an [[1973 oil crisis|economic crisis]] in the 1970s inspired a move away from [[Keynesian economics]], especially under [[Margaret Thatcher]] in the United Kingdom and [[Ronald Reagan]] in the United States. This trend, known as [[neoliberalism]], constituted a [[paradigm shift]] away from the [[post-war Keynesian consensus]], which lasted from 1945 to 1980.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Palley|first1=Thomas I|date=2004-05-05|title=From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting Paradigms in Economics|url=http://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/|journal=Foreign Policy in Focus|access-date=25 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=igrwb3rsOOUC&pg=PA339|title=Modern Political Ideologies|last1=Vincent|first1=Andrew|date=2009|publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]]|isbn=978-1-4051-5495-6|location=Hoboken, New Jersey|page=339}}</ref> Meanwhile, nearing the end of the 20th century, communist states in Eastern Europe [[Revolutions of 1989|collapsed 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.<ref>[[Colomer, Josep Maria]]. ''Great Empires, Small Nations''. New York: Routledge, 2007. {{ISBN|0-415-43775-X}}, p. 62.</ref> After 1945, liberal democracies spread very quickly but then retreated. In ''The 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".<ref>{{cite book|author=Larry Diamond|title=The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vx3JTGSB5JcC&pg=PA7|year=2008|publisher=Henry Holt|page=7|isbn=978-0-8050-7869-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Freedom in the World 2016|publisher=Freedom House|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016|date=2016-01-27}}</ref> However, liberalism still faces challenges, especially with the phenomenal growth of China as a model combination of authoritarian government and economic liberalism.<ref>Peerenboom, Randall. ''China modernizes''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. {{ISBN|0-19-920834-4}}, pp. 7–8.</ref> Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant [[ideology]] of the [[modern era]].<ref name=":1" /><ref name="Adams 2011" />{{rp|11}}

== Criticism and support <!--'Anti-liberal' and 'Anti-liberalism' redirects here-->==
[[File:Fusilamiento de Torrijos (Gisbert).jpg|thumb|[[Execution of Torrijos and his Companions on the Beach at Málaga|Execution of José María de Torrijos y Uriarte and his men]] in 1831 as Spanish King [[Ferdinand VII]] took [[History of Spain (1810–73)#The Ominous Decade (1823–1833)|repressive measures]] against the liberal forces in his country]]
[[File:Raif Badawi cropped.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Raif Badawi]], a [[Saudi Arabia]]n writer and the creator of the website Free Saudi Liberals, who was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for "insulting Islam" in 2014]]
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.<ref>Wolfe, p. 116.</ref>

===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.<ref>Koerner, p. 14.</ref> However, some variations of conservatism, such as [[liberal conservatism]], expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including "small government and thriving capitalism".<ref name="Grigsby, p. 108"/>

[[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.<ref name="Grigsby, p. 108">Grigsby, p. 108.</ref> Nonetheless, Burke was highly influential on other classical liberal thought, and has been praised by both conservatives and liberals alike.<ref>{{cite book |last=O'Keeffe |first=Dennis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YVO9QuYUGwwC&pg=PA93 |title=Edmund Burke |publisher=Continuum |year=2009 |isbn=978-0826429780 |editor-last=Meadowcroft |editor-first=John |page=93}}</ref>

In the book ''[[Why Liberalism Failed]]'' (2018), [[Patrick Deneen]] argued that liberalism has led to [[income inequality]], cultural decline, atomization, [[nihilism]], the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies.<ref name="Linker">Damon Linker, [https://theweek.com/articles/749378/ominous-prophecy-liberalism An ominous prophecy for liberalism], ''The Week'', January 22, 2018.</ref><ref name=":02">{{Cite web |last=Burns |first=Nick |date=2020-04-08 |title=The new intellectuals of the American right |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/2020/04/new-intellectuals-american-right |access-date=2023-08-10 |website=New Statesman |language=en-US}}</ref> The book also argues that liberalism has replaced old values of community, religion and tradition with self-interest.<ref name=":02" />

Russian President [[Vladimir Putin]] believes that "liberalism has become obsolete" and claims that the vast majority of people in the world oppose multiculturalism, immigration, and [[civil and political rights]] for [[LGBTQ]] people.<ref>{{Cite news|date= 27 June 2019|editor1-last=Tiounine|editor1-first=Margot|editor2-last=Hannen|editor2-first=Tom|work=[[Financial Times]]|title=Liberalism 'has outlived its purpose' — President Putin speaks exclusively to the Financial Times|url=https://www.ft.com/video/a49cfa25-610e-438c-b11d-5dac19619e08|language=en-GB|access-date=23 August 2019}}</ref>

===Catholicism===
{{Integralism}}
{{See also|Integralism|Christian democracy|Religious democracy}}
One of the most outspoken early critics of liberalism was the [[Roman Catholic Church]], which resulted in lengthy power struggles between national governments and the Church.<ref>{{cite book|last=Grew|first=Raymond|chapter=Liberty and the Catholic Church in 19th century Europe|title=Freedom and Religion in the 19th Century|editor-last=Helmstadter|editor-first=Richard|publisher=Stanford University Press|year=1997|isbn=978-0-8047-3087-7|page=[https://archive.org/details/freedomreligioni0000unse/page/201 201]|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/freedomreligioni0000unse/page/201}}</ref> [[Christian democracy]], a movement associated with modern democracy, hopes to spread [[Catholic social teaching|Catholic social ideas]] and has gained a large following in some European nations.<ref>Riff, pp. 34–36.</ref> The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the [[industrialisation]] and [[urbanisation]] associated with ''laissez-faire'' liberalism in the 19th century.<ref>Riff, p. 34.</ref>

=== Anarchism ===
Anarchists criticize the liberal [[social contract]], arguing that it creates a state that is "oppressive, violent, corrupt, and inimical to liberty".<ref>{{Citation |last=Fiala |first=Andrew |title=Anarchism |date=2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/anarchism/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-06-17 |edition=Winter 2021 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}</ref>

===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.<ref>Koerner, pp. 9–12.</ref> [[Vladimir Lenin]] stated that—in contrast with [[Marxism]]—liberal science defends [[wage slavery]];<ref>{{cite book|last1=Selsam|first1=Howard|last2=Martel|first2=Harry|author-link1=Howard Selsam|title=Reader in Marxist Philosophy|year=1963|publisher=[[International Publishers]]|isbn=978-0-7178-0167-1|page=[https://archive.org/details/readerinmarxistp00sels/page/37 37]|url=https://archive.org/details/readerinmarxistp00sels|url-access=registration|access-date=1 June 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Lenin|first1=Vladimir|author-link1=Vladimir Lenin|title=On Culture and Cultural Revolution|date=2008|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CsoSQ6vD8fUC&pg=PA37|publisher=Wildside Press LLC|isbn=978-1-4344-6352-4|page=34|access-date=1 June 2017}}</ref> however, some proponents of liberalism, such as [[Thomas Paine]], [[George Henry Evans]], and [[Silvio Gesell]], were critics of wage slavery.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html |title=Social Security Online History Pages |access-date=1 June 2017 |archive-date=15 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150315055647/http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Rodriguez |first1=Junius P.|author1-link=Junius P. Rodriguez |title=Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia |volume=1 |year=2007 |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |page=500 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4X44KbDBl9gC&pg=PA500 |access-date=1 June 2017 |isbn=978-1-85109-544-5}}</ref>

[[Deng Xiaoping]] believed that liberalization would destroy the political stability of the [[People's Republic of China]] and the [[Chinese Communist Party]], making it difficult for development to take place, and is inherently capitalistic. He termed it "[[bourgeois liberalization]]".<ref>{{Cite web |title=《邓小平文选第三卷》《在党的十二届六中全会上的讲话》|language=zh |url=http://www.qstheory.cn/books/2019-07/31/c_1119485398_58.htm|access-date=2022-02-27 |archive-date=2022-02-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220227203520/http://www.qstheory.cn/books/2019-07/31/c_1119485398_58.htm |quote=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。<br /> 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。|trans-quote=}}</ref> Thus, some socialists accuse the economic doctrines of liberalism, such as individual [[economic 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=2019-09-09 |title=The anti-liberal moment |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary |access-date=2021-05-06 |website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] |language=en}}</ref>

=== Feminism ===
Some [[feminists]] 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 the [[personal is political]] and has relied on political institutions and processes as barriers against illiberalism."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stopler |first=Gila |date=May 8, 2021 |title=The personal is political: The feminist critique of liberalism and the challenge of right-wing populism |url=https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/19/2/393/6272532 |access-date=2023-07-13 |journal=[[International Journal of Constitutional Law]] |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=393–402 |doi=10.1093/icon/moab032|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Islam===
[[Liberalism and progressivism within Islam|Liberalism within Islam]] is supported by some [[Islamic schools and branches]].<ref name="Kurzman 1998">{{cite book |author-last=Kurzman |author-first=Charles |author-link=Charles Kurzman |year=1998 |chapter=Liberal Islam and Its Islamic Context |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4n8HSe9SfXMC&pg=PA1 |editor-last=Kurzman |editor-first=Charles |title=Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook |location=[[Oxford]] and [[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |pages=1–26 |isbn=9780195116229 |oclc=37368975}}</ref><ref name="Essays by Muslims">{{cite book |editor-last=Safi |editor-first=Omid |editor-link=Omid Safi |date=2003 |title=Progressive Muslims: on justice, gender and pluralism |location=Oxford |publisher=[[Oneworld Publications]] |isbn=9781851683161 |oclc=52380025}}</ref> The [[Al-Baqara 256]] verse in [[Quran]] supports liberalism by stating "there is no compulsion in religion".<ref name="qref|2|256">{{qref|2|256|b=yl}}</ref> [[Islamic supremacism]], which includes criminal punishment of [[apostasy in Islam]] up to [[capital punishment]], opposes liberalism.<ref name="g263">{{cite journal | last=Kumar H. M. | first=Sanjeev | title=Islam and the Question of Confessional Religious Identity: The Islamic State, Apostasy, and the Making of a Theology of Violence | journal=Contemporary Review of the Middle East | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=5 | issue=4 | date=10 October 2018 | issn=2347-7989 | doi=10.1177/2347798918806415 | pages=327–348}}</ref>

=== Social democracy ===
[[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.<ref>Lightfoot, p. 17.</ref> 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|date=October 2024}} calling [[American liberalism]] "bootleg social democracy" due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States.<ref>Susser, p. 110.</ref>

=== Fascism ===
[[Fascism and liberalism|Fascists accuse liberalism]] of [[materialism]] and a lack of spiritual values.<ref name="massaschussetts1">{{cite book |first1=Marvin |last1=Perry |first2=Myrna |last2=Chase |first3=Margaret |last3=Jacob |first4=James R. |last4=Jacob |title=Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society – From 1600 |volume=2 |edition=9th |location=Boston, Massachusetts |publisher=[[Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company]] |date=2009 |page=760}}</ref> In particular, fascism opposes liberalism for its materialism, [[rationalism]], [[individualism]] and [[utilitarianism]].<ref name="revolution1994">{{cite book |last1=Sternhell |first1=Zeev |first2=Mario |last2=Sznajder |first3=Maia |last3=Ashéri |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hnv0F88nLawC |title=The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080448/https://books.google.com/books?id=hnv0F88nLawC&printsec=frontcover |archive-date=6 December 2022 |location=Princeton, New Jersey |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |date=1994 |page=7|isbn=0691044864 }}</ref> Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness,<ref name="massaschussetts1"/> but they generally agree with liberals in their support of [[private property rights]] and a [[market economy]].<ref name="revolution1994"/>

== See also ==
* [[Anarchism]]
* [[Illiberal democracy]]
* [[Liberalism by country]]
* [[Libertarianism]]

== References ==

=== Notes ===
{{reflist}}

=== Bibliography and further reading ===
{{refbegin}}
*{{cite book |last=Alterman |first=Eric |title=Why We’re Liberals : A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America|publisher=Viking Adult |year=2008 |location=New York |isbn=0-670-01860-0|oclc= 182857005|author-link=Eric Alterman}}
*{{cite book |last=Ameringer |first=Charles D.|title=Political parties of the Americas, 1980s to 1990s : Canada, Latin America, and the West Indies|publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]]|year=1992 |location=Westport |isbn=0-313-27418-5|oclc=25202496 }}
*{{cite book |last1=Amin |first1=Samir |last2=Membrez. |first2=James H.|title=The liberal virus: permanent war and the americanization of the world |publisher=Monthly Review Press |year=2004 |location=New York |author-link=Samir Amin|isbn=9781583671078|oclc=55018976}}
*{{cite book |last=Antoninus |first=Marcus Aurelius |title=The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |location=New York |isbn=0-19-954059-4|author-link=Marcus Aurelius}}
*{{cite book |last=Arnold |first=N. Scott |title=Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2009 |location=New York |isbn=0-495-50112-3 |oclc=233591942}}
* Auerbach, Alan and Kotlikoff, Laurence. ''Macroeconomics'' Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998. {{ISBN|0-262-01170-0}}.
* Barzilai, Gad. ''Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities'' [[University of Michigan Press]], 2003. {{ISBN|978-0-472-03079-8}}.
* 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. {{ISBN|978-1-84275-167-1}}.
* [[George Brandis]], Tom Harley & [[Donald Markwell]] (editors). ''Liberals Face the Future: Essays on Australian Liberalism'', Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1984.
* [[Alan Bullock]] & [[Maurice Shock]] (editors). ''The Liberal Tradition: From Fox to Keynes'', Oxford: [[Clarendon Press]], 1967.
* Chodos, Robert et al. ''The unmaking of Canada: the hidden theme in Canadian history since 1945''. Halifax: James Lorimer & Company, 1991. {{ISBN|1-55028-337-5}}.
* {{Cite book|last=Clower|first=Robert W.|editor1-first=K. Vela|editor1-last=Velupillai|editor1-link=Vela Velupillai|date=22 April 2004|title=Macroeconomic Theory and Economic Policy: Essays in Honour of Jean-Paul Fitoussi|chapter=5: Trashing J.B. Say: The Story of a Mare's Nest|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-203-35650-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tzzClShefiYC}}
* Coker, Christopher. ''Twilight of the West''. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998. {{ISBN|0-8133-3368-7}}.
* Taverne, Dick. ''The march of unreason: science, democracy, and the new fundamentalism''. New York: [[Oxford University Press]], 2005. {{ISBN|0-19-280485-5}}.
* Diamond, Larry. ''The Spirit of Democracy''. New York: Macmillan, 2008. {{ISBN|0-8050-7869-X}}.
* Dobson, John. ''Bulls, Bears, Boom, and Bust''. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006. {{ISBN|1-85109-553-5}}.
* Dorrien, Gary. ''The making of American liberal theology''. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. {{ISBN|0-664-22354-0}}.
* Farr, Thomas. ''World of Faith and Freedom''. New York: Oxford University Press US, 2008. {{ISBN|0-19-517995-1}}.
* Fawcett, Edmund. ''Liberalism: The Life of an Idea''. Princeton: [[Princeton University Press]], 2014. {{ISBN|978-0-691-15689-7}}.
* 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. {{ISBN|0-7425-2212-1}}.
* 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. {{ISBN|0-07-232267-5}}.
* Gifford, Rob. ''China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power''. Random House, 2008. {{ISBN|0-8129-7524-3}}.
* Godwin, Kenneth et al. ''School choice tradeoffs: liberty, equity, and diversity''. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. {{ISBN|0-292-72842-5}}.
* Gould, Andrew. ''Origins of liberal dominance''. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. {{ISBN|0-472-11015-2}}.
* Gray, John. ''Liberalism''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995. {{ISBN|0-8166-2801-7}}.
* Grigsby, Ellen. ''Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science''. Florence: Cengage Learning, 2008. {{ISBN|0-495-50112-3}}.
* Gross, Jonathan. ''Byron: the erotic liberal''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001. {{ISBN|0-7425-1162-6}}.
* Hafner, Danica and Ramet, Sabrina. ''Democratic transition in Slovenia: value transformation, education, and media''. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006. {{ISBN|1-58544-525-8}}.
* Handelsman, Michael. ''Culture and Customs of Ecuador''. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000. {{ISBN|0-313-30244-8}}.
* [[Hartz, Louis]]. ''The liberal tradition in America''. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1955. {{ISBN|0-15-651269-6}}.
* {{Cite book|last= Heywood|first=Andrew|year=2003|title=Political Ideologies: An Introduction|location= New York|publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]]|isbn= 978-0-333-96177-3}}
* Hodge, Carl. ''Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800–1944''. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. {{ISBN|0-313-33406-4}}.
* Jensen, Pamela Grande. ''Finding a new feminism: rethinking the woman question for liberal democracy''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. {{ISBN|0-8476-8189-0}}.
* Johnson, Paul. ''The Renaissance: A Short History''. New York: Modern Library, 2002. {{ISBN|0-8129-6619-8}}.
* {{cite journal|last=Kanazawa|first=Satoshi|author-link=Satoshi Kanazawa|year=2010|title=Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent|url=http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf |journal= [[Social Psychology Quarterly]]|volume=73|issue=1|pages=33–57|jstor=25677384|doi=10.1177/0190272510361602|citeseerx=10.1.1.395.4490|s2cid=2642312}}
* Karatnycky, Adrian. ''Freedom in the World''. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 2000. {{ISBN|0-7658-0760-2}}.
* Karatnycky, Adrian et al. ''Nations in transit, 2001''. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 2001. {{ISBN|0-7658-0897-8}}.
* Kelly, Paul. ''Liberalism''. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005. {{ISBN|0-7456-3291-2}}.
* Kirchner, Emil. ''Liberal parties in Western Europe''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. {{ISBN|0-521-32394-0}}.
* Knoop, Todd. ''Recessions and Depressions'' Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004. {{ISBN|0-313-38163-1}}.
* Koerner, Kirk. ''Liberalism and its critics''. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 1985. {{ISBN|0-7099-1551-9}}.
* Lightfoot, Simon. ''Europeanizing social democracy?: The rise of the Party of European Socialists''. New York: Routledge, 2005. {{ISBN|0-415-34803-X}}.
* [[Domenico Losurdo|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. {{ISBN|1-59420-170-6}}.
* Manent, Pierre and Seigel, Jerrold. ''An Intellectual History of Liberalism''. Princeton: [[Princeton University Press]], 1996. {{ISBN|0-691-02911-3}}.
* [[Donald Markwell]]. ''[[John Maynard Keynes]] and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2006.
* Mazower, Mark. ''Dark Continent''. New York: Vintage Books, 1998. {{ISBN|0-679-75704-X}}.
* Monsma, Stephen and Soper, J. Christopher. ''The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies''. Lanham: [[Rowman & Littlefield]], 2008. {{ISBN|0-7425-5417-1}}.
* [[Robert Roswell Palmer|Palmer, R.R.]] and Joel Colton. ''A History of the Modern World''. New York: [[McGraw-Hill]], Inc., 1995. {{ISBN|0-07-040826-2}}.
* Perry, Marvin et al. ''Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society''. Florence, KY: [[Cengage Learning]], 2008. {{ISBN|0-547-14742-2}}.
* Pierson, Paul. ''The New Politics of the Welfare State''. New York: [[Oxford University Press]], 2001. {{ISBN|0-19-829756-4}}.
* Puddington, Arch. ''Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties''. Lanham: [[Rowman & Littlefield]], 2007. {{ISBN|0-7425-5897-5}}.
* Riff, Michael. ''Dictionary of modern political ideologies''. Manchester: [[Manchester University Press]], 1990. {{ISBN|0-7190-3289-X}}.
* Rivlin, Alice. ''Reviving the American Dream'' Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1992. {{ISBN|0-8157-7476-1}}.
* Ros, Agustin. ''Profits for all?: the cost and benefits of employee ownership''. New York: Nova Publishers, 2001. {{ISBN|1-59033-061-7}}.
* {{Cite book|title=The Lost History of Liberalism : From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century|last=Rosenblatt|first=Helena|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2018|isbn=9780691203966|oclc=1028166609}}
* Routledge, Paul et al. ''The geopolitics reader''. New York: [[Routledge]], 2006. {{ISBN|0-415-34148-5}}.
* {{cite book |last= Russell |first=Bertrand |author-link=Bertrand Russell |year=2000 |orig-date=1945 |title=History of Western Philosophy |location=London |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-0-415-22854-1 |title-link=A History of Western Philosophy}}
* [[Alan Ryan|Ryan, Alan]]. ''The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill''. Humanity Books: 1970. {{ISBN|978-1-57392-404-7}}.
* [[Alan Ryan|Ryan, Alan]]. ''The Making of Modern Liberalism'' ([[Princeton University Press]], 2012).
* [[Alan Ryan|Ryan, Alan]]. ''On Politics: A History of Political Thought: From Herodotus to the Present''. Allen Lane, 2012. {{ISBN|978-0-87140-465-7}}.
* Shell, Jonathan. ''The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People''. New York: Macmillan, 2004. {{ISBN|0-8050-4457-4}}.
* Shaw, G. K. ''Keynesian Economics: The Permanent Revolution''. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Company, 1988. {{ISBN|1-85278-099-1}}.
* Sinclair, Timothy. ''Global governance: critical concepts in political science''. Oxford: [[Taylor & Francis]], 2004. {{ISBN|0-415-27662-4}}.
* Smith, Steven B. ''Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity''. New Haven: Yale University Press 1997. {{ISBN|0300066805}}
* Song, Robert. ''Christianity and Liberal Society''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]], 2006. {{ISBN|0-19-826933-1}}.
* Stacy, Lee. ''Mexico and the United States''. New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2002. {{ISBN|0-7614-7402-1}}.
* Steindl, Frank. ''Understanding Economic Recovery in the 1930s''. Ann Arbor: [[University of Michigan Press]], 2004. {{ISBN|0-472-11348-8}}.
* Susser, Bernard. ''Political ideology in the modern world''. Upper Saddle River: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. {{ISBN|0-02-418442-X}}.
* {{cite journal |last=Trivers |first=Robert L. |author-link=Robert Trivers |year=1971 |title=The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism |url=http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf |journal=[[The Quarterly Review of Biology]] |volume=46 |number=1 |pages=35–57 |jstor=2822435 |doi=10.1086/406755 |s2cid=19027999}}.
* Van den Berghe, Pierre. ''The Liberal dilemma in South Africa''. Oxford: [[Taylor & Francis]], 1979. {{ISBN|0-7099-0136-4}}.
* 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. {{ISBN|3-8258-7668-3}}.
* Venturelli, Shalini. ''Liberalizing the European media: politics, regulation, and the public sphere''. New York: [[Oxford University Press]], 1998. {{ISBN|0-19-823379-5}}.
* Wallerstein, Immanuel. ''The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism trimphant 1789–1914''. Berkeley and Los Angeles: [[University of California Press]], 2011.
* Whitfield, Stephen. ''Companion to twentieth-century America''. Hoboken: [[Wiley-Blackwell]], 2004. {{ISBN|0-631-21100-4}}.
* [[Alan Wolfe|Wolfe, Alan]]. ''The Future of Liberalism''. New York: [[Random House]], Inc., 2009. {{ISBN|0-307-38625-2}}.
* {{cite book |last=Young |first=Shaun |year=2002 |title=Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=[[University Press of America]] |isbn=978-0-7618-2240-0 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/beyondrawlsanaly0000youn}}
* Zvesper, John. ''Nature and liberty''. New York: [[Routledge]], 1993. {{ISBN|0-415-08923-9}}.

:: '''Britain'''
* Adams, Ian. ''Ideology and politics in Britain today''. Manchester: [[Manchester University Press]], 1998. {{ISBN|0-7190-5056-1}}.
* Cook, Richard. ''The Grand Old Man''. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. {{ISBN|1-4191-6449-X}} on Gladstone.
* Falco, Maria. ''Feminist interpretations of Mary Wollstonecraft''. State College: Penn State Press, 1996. {{ISBN|0-271-01493-8}}.
* Forster, Greg. ''John Locke's politics of moral consensus''. Cambridge: [[Cambridge University Press]], 2005. {{ISBN|0-521-84218-2}}.
* [[Locke, John]]. ''[[wikisource:A Letter Concerning Toleration|A Letter Concerning Toleration]]''. 1689. 
* Locke, John. ''Two Treatises of Government''. reprint, New York: Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., 1947. {{ISBN|0-02-848500-9}}.
* Wempe, Ben. ''T. H. Green's theory of positive freedom: from metaphysics to political theory''. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004. {{ISBN|0-907845-58-4}}.

:: '''France'''
* Frey, Linda and Frey, Marsha. ''The French Revolution''. Westport: [[Greenwood Press]], 2004. {{ISBN|0-313-32193-0}}.
* Hanson, Paul. ''Contesting the French Revolution''. Hoboken: [[Blackwell Publishing]], 2009. {{ISBN|1-4051-6083-7}}.
* Leroux, Robert, ''Political Economy and Liberalism in France: The Contributions of Frédéric Bastiat'', London and New York, [[Routledge]], 2011.
* Leroux, Robert, and David Hart (eds), ''French Liberalism in the 19th century. An Anthology'', London and New York, [[Routledge]], 2012.
* Lyons, Martyn. ''Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution''. New York: [[St. Martin's Press]], Inc., 1994. {{ISBN|0-312-12123-7}}.
* Shlapentokh, Dmitry. ''The French Revolution and the Russian Anti-Democratic Tradition''. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997. {{ISBN|1-56000-244-1}}.
{{refend}}

== External links ==
{{Library resources box}} 
* {{cite encyclopedia |last1=Ball|first1=Terence|first2=Richard| last2=Dagger
 |date= |title=Liberalism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |location= |publisher= |access-date=}}
* {{cite SEP|url-id=liberalism|title=Liberalism}}

{{liberalism}}
{{navboxes
|list=
{{aspects of capitalism}}
{{political ideologies}}
{{political philosophy}}
{{Western culture}}
}}
{{Subject bar|Current events|Liberalism|Libertarianism|Politics|wikt=yes|commons=yes|commons-search=Category:Liberalism|q=yes|s=yes|s-search=Category:Liberalism|b=yes|v=yes|d=yes|d-search=Q6216}}
{{authority control}}

[[Category:Liberalism| ]]
[[Category:Egalitarianism]]
[[Category:History of political thought]]
[[Category:Human rights concepts]]
[[Category:Individualism]]
[[Category:Political culture]]
[[Category:Political science terminology]]
[[Category:Social theories]]