Talk:Classical Liberal - Revision history

VargasMilan: reply to RNozickFan

2015-08-19T05:26:19Z

reply to RNozickFan

RNozickFan: /* Request for citations from original author */ new section

2015-08-19T04:53:45Z

Request for citations from original author: new section

Gregkochuconn: Created page with "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 ind..."

2012-02-14T01:21:48Z

Created page with "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 ind..."

New page

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. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 20:21, 13 February 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:26, August 19, 2015
Line 4:		Line 4:

	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.		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. [[User:VargasMilan\|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan\|talk]]) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:53, August 19, 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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. [[User:Gregkochuconn\|Gregkochuconn]] 20:21, 13 February 2012 (EST)		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. [[User:Gregkochuconn\|Gregkochuconn]] 20:21, 13 February 2012 (EST)
		+
		+	== Request for citations from original author ==
		+
		+	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.