I removed the sentence about socialism, communism and fascism. Socialism and communism promote collective rights, not individual ones. Communism in its purest form strips all individuality and makes everyone the same. Socialism is big government at the very least, and moderate communism at most. Not really classical liberalism. Fascism is not either. It promotes the power of a select few individuals rather than everyone as an individual. Classical liberalism states that everyone should have equal rights and equal opportunity. Socialism and communism change that to equal results (i.e. even if I'm a terrible garbageman and you're a highly successful doctor, we should still be treated the same in all aspects, including financial ones.) Fascism drops the premise alltogether, saying only a select few have rights. So the sentence is wrong at worst and poorly explained at best. How is it relevant that they're not popular? Are they classical liberalism or not. Gregkochuconn 20:21, 13 February 2012 (EST)
There is a bibliography at the end of this article, and the original author should place citations throughout the article which tie statements to their sources. It seems someone did the legwork, but it is incomplete in its current state. A simple bibliography at the end is unacceptable as a form of citation, and is intellectually irresponsible.
- Not if it was done while originating what was essentially a stub article, RNozickFan. VargasMilan (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (EDT)