Talk:Market liberalism

Latest comment: 9 years ago by AlexanderLevian in topic Sourcing problem

Redirect? edit

Should this page not be redirected to classical liberalism. The article essentially says that the term is used a different term for this. I mean that is redirect-material. C mon (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I personally agree with C mon. But what about redirecting to economic liberalism? --Checco (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing problem edit

The one source this article uses to back up its definition is the Cato institute, a libertarian think tank. A quick google search turns up a somewhat alternative definition which states that market liberalism is an alternative to classic liberalism. Needs more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.97.75 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree. This should redirect to classical liberalism. AlexanderLevian (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment edit

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Market liberalism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article states: "Like all liberals, market liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept."

There are in fact two statements presented in that one sentence: (1) "Market liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept." (2) "All liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept."

That second statement is very much debatable, and shouldn't be coat-tailed in with that main point regarding "Market liberalism".

For example, the Market liberal is right here said to advocate "a small state", yet many modern liberals advocate very large state programs. Now, as the state directed society consumes taxes and grows large, the number of our individual directed life-choices must concomitantly whither.

I suggest the first statement (1) is fine, but (2) is an unnecessary inclusion of an unsupported belief belonging to the article's author.

Tomesteader (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)