Page 2 of 4 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Are you a classical liberal/libertarian?
Yes. 50%  50%  [ 12 ]
No. 50%  50%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 24

kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

13 Dec 2017, 1:06 am

I consider myself to be a Classical Liberal. I only vote Libertarian because they are closest to me, but I generally consider them to be clowns.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

13 Dec 2017, 8:44 am

Hyeokgeose wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
In another thread I said that a lot of modern extremists like to paint themselves as "classic liberals" because they either don't know what it is or they want to gain the credibility of having a semi-respectable ideology without actually changing their views.

You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in immigration controls.
You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in trade barriers.
There's no pride in being a classic liberal if you're not a feminist, if you don't support worker's rights, and if you don't want to liberalise the justice system. Some classic liberals had pretty shoddy views on some of theses things but I'm sure if you transported most of them to the modern day then they'd re-assess and change their minds.
If by "classic liberal" you mean "I'm pro-market and pro-liberty" then great, that's basically my ideology; if we disagree on one or two things then that doesn't mean you aren't a liberal. But if you mean "my views are at least 100 years out of date" then sorry, you're not a classic liberal.
In my experience, most centre-right liberal types do not call themselves classic liberals, they call themselves neoliberals or ordoliberals or Orange Bookers or just plain liberals. The people who take pride in being "classic liberals" would more accurately be called "regressive liberals".


Classical liberalism is under the umbrella term of libertarianism. On the philosophical spectrum that we use, we have collectivist ideologies on the left side of a plane and individualist ideologies on the right side. At the farthest left end would be communism (which of course has more specific ideologies under it), and at the farthest right end would be anarcho-capitalism (can be disputed). Some where on the far right, one would find classical liberalism, which to me (and thus far, those I've talked to from some political think tanks), would be the individualist philosophy that dominated the United States during the Enlightenment. So, it's more of a philosophical term as opposed to utilizing out-dated platforms; thus, we apply individualist philosophy from the Enlightenment to modern times. In short, we aren't feminists, socialists, etc. We advocate for a small federal government that is decentralized, and advocate for states' rights. I would say we revitalize "The Spirit of 1776" (per the name of my work-in-progress blog, hehe).

Neoliberals come from the Reagan-era Republicans, or also known as today's conservatives (Reagan, Thatcher -- those folks). Modern liberals refer to figures such as Zinnists (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton), and I would include Wilson, FDR, and Hoover with them (ultimately, they're the fathers of "progressive" policy).

A good book to understand classical liberals would be "The Libertarian Mind" by David Boaz. Libertarianism is the modern term for a classical liberal. Don't confuse it with the Libertarian Party -- many do that. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has abandoned principles over time, just like the two mainstream parties, and in my opinion, should not call itself the Libertarian Party anymore -- or at least, the "[Closest-you'll-get-to-a] Libertarian Party."

Where would U.S. President Coolidge be put on this spectrum?


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Hyeokgeose
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2017
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: USA

15 Dec 2017, 4:46 am

AspieUtah wrote:
Where would U.S. President Coolidge be put on this spectrum?


Definitely on the right. Many libertarians, and young conservatives, love Coolidge for these reasons: a man of few words, vetoes, and staunch laissez-faire policy in office.

"I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government -- and more for themselves.
I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom."
-Calvin Coolidge.
Speech on Taxes, Liberty, and the Philosophy of Government delivered on 11 August 1924.


_________________
"It’s not until they tell you you’re going to die soon that you realize how short life is. Time is the most valuable thing in life because it never comes back. And whether you spend it in the arms of a loved one or alone in a prison-cell, life is what you make of it. Dream big."
-Stefán Karl Stefánsson
10 July, 1975 - 21 August, 2018.


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

15 Dec 2017, 7:41 am

Hyeokgeose wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Where would U.S. President Coolidge be put on this spectrum?

Definitely on the right. Many libertarians, and young conservatives, love Coolidge for these reasons: a man of few words, vetoes, and staunch laissez-faire policy in office.

"I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government -- and more for themselves.
I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom."
-Calvin Coolidge.
Speech on Taxes, Liberty, and the Philosophy of Government delivered on 11 August 1924.

Jefferson said much of the same things, but was a Democrat (perhaps libertarianism is no respecter of partisans). Because Coolidge was cousin to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone (both cousins of mine), they seemed to work well with each other.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,325
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Dec 2017, 8:01 am

It would have been nice if Coolidge's laissez-faire-ism worked. I'd rather live with a certain harmony.

But other forces ruined it for Laissez-faire......beyond his control.



GoSensGo
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 31 Oct 2017
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Newfoundland

15 Dec 2017, 11:45 am

Libertarian is probably what I most identify as politically. I'm for minimum government and maximum liberty, but I feel that those minimums and maximums are always up for debate and I'm always willing to change my position.

But yeah, I would consider myself (at least in large part to be) a classic liberal. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.



GoSensGo
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 31 Oct 2017
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Newfoundland

15 Dec 2017, 11:46 am

kokopelli wrote:
I consider myself to be a Classical Liberal. I only vote Libertarian because they are closest to me, but I generally consider them to be clowns.


I find a lot of the hardcore libertarians to be intolerable (just like hardcore cons and liberals). Screaming "TAXATION IS THEFT" like a bunch of children, ugh.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

15 Dec 2017, 11:54 am

GoSensGo wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
I consider myself to be a Classical Liberal. I only vote Libertarian because they are closest to me, but I generally consider them to be clowns.

I find a lot of the hardcore libertarians to be intolerable (just like hardcore cons and liberals). Screaming "TAXATION IS THEFT" like a bunch of children, ugh.

They are essentially the Moral Majority or Code Pink crowds. I would, however, agree with an altered version of the scream as "Federal taxation is theft." Shifting the United States back to a state-based excise tax system (and abandoning income taxes) would give competition to some states while others lose competition.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


GoSensGo
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 31 Oct 2017
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 70
Location: Newfoundland

15 Dec 2017, 12:15 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
I would, however, agree with an altered version of the scream as "Federal taxation is theft." Shifting the United States back to a state-based excise tax system (and abandoning income taxes) would give competition to some states while others lose competition.


For sure, and the conversation on how much government and taxation is appropriate is a very interesting one.

But when I hear some of these guys screaming about "TAXATION IS THEFT, IT'S TAKING MY MONEY BY FORCE AND COERCION!! ! THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO ANY OF MY MONEY" I'm just like... okay dude haha. They're just inverted Communists to me.



Hyeokgeose
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2017
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: USA

15 Dec 2017, 6:38 pm

GoSensGo wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
I consider myself to be a Classical Liberal. I only vote Libertarian because they are closest to me, but I generally consider them to be clowns.


I find a lot of the hardcore libertarians to be intolerable (just like hardcore cons and liberals). Screaming "TAXATION IS THEFT" like a bunch of children, ugh.

That's a problem that other libertarians see as well. We have these folks that go about saying just that, and then tell other libertarians that they're not libertarian since they don't agree on everything. Frankly, many of us are tired of those people, haha.

AspieUtah wrote:
GoSensGo wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
I consider myself to be a Classical Liberal. I only vote Libertarian because they are closest to me, but I generally consider them to be clowns.

I find a lot of the hardcore libertarians to be intolerable (just like hardcore cons and liberals). Screaming "TAXATION IS THEFT" like a bunch of children, ugh.

They are essentially the Moral Majority or Code Pink crowds. I would, however, agree with an altered version of the scream as "Federal taxation is theft." Shifting the United States back to a state-based excise tax system (and abandoning income taxes) would give competition to some states while others lose competition.


I agree -- I don't think the Federal government has a right to tax individuals. I see that as a right exclusive to the states, as it was originally.


_________________
"It’s not until they tell you you’re going to die soon that you realize how short life is. Time is the most valuable thing in life because it never comes back. And whether you spend it in the arms of a loved one or alone in a prison-cell, life is what you make of it. Dream big."
-Stefán Karl Stefánsson
10 July, 1975 - 21 August, 2018.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,812
Location: Reading, England

15 Dec 2017, 7:42 pm

Hyeokgeose wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
In another thread I said that a lot of modern extremists like to paint themselves as "classic liberals" because they either don't know what it is or they want to gain the credibility of having a semi-respectable ideology without actually changing their views.

You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in immigration controls.
You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in trade barriers.
There's no pride in being a classic liberal if you're not a feminist, if you don't support worker's rights, and if you don't want to liberalise the justice system. Some classic liberals had pretty shoddy views on some of theses things but I'm sure if you transported most of them to the modern day then they'd re-assess and change their minds.
If by "classic liberal" you mean "I'm pro-market and pro-liberty" then great, that's basically my ideology; if we disagree on one or two things then that doesn't mean you aren't a liberal. But if you mean "my views are at least 100 years out of date" then sorry, you're not a classic liberal.
In my experience, most centre-right liberal types do not call themselves classic liberals, they call themselves neoliberals or ordoliberals or Orange Bookers or just plain liberals. The people who take pride in being "classic liberals" would more accurately be called "regressive liberals".


Classical liberalism is under the umbrella term of libertarianism. On the philosophical spectrum that we use, we have collectivist ideologies on the left side of a plane and individualist ideologies on the right side. At the farthest left end would be communism (which of course has more specific ideologies under it), and at the farthest right end would be anarcho-capitalism (can be disputed). Some where on the far right, one would find classical liberalism, which to me (and thus far, those I've talked to from some political think tanks), would be the individualist philosophy that dominated the United States during the Enlightenment. So, it's more of a philosophical term as opposed to utilizing out-dated platforms; thus, we apply individualist philosophy from the Enlightenment to modern times. In short, we aren't feminists, socialists, etc. We advocate for a small federal government that is decentralized, and advocate for states' rights. I would say we revitalize "The Spirit of 1776" (per the name of my work-in-progress blog, hehe).

Neoliberals come from the Reagan-era Republicans, or also known as today's conservatives (Reagan, Thatcher -- those folks). Modern liberals refer to figures such as Zinnists (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton), and I would include Wilson, FDR, and Hoover with them (ultimately, they're the fathers of "progressive" policy).

A good book to understand classical liberals would be "The Libertarian Mind" by David Boaz. Libertarianism is the modern term for a classical liberal. Don't confuse it with the Libertarian Party -- many do that. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has abandoned principles over time, just like the two mainstream parties, and in my opinion, should not call itself the Libertarian Party anymore -- or at least, the "[Closest-you'll-get-to-a] Libertarian Party."

Nothing you've said here is new to me, except for the term "Zinnist" which Google seems to think is either the German word for tin or a misspelling of "Zionist". I would disagree with much of it (the term "neoliberal" pre-dates Reagan and Thatcher and traditionally referred to people closer to Obama and Clinton; your view is extremely US-centric while classic liberalism was very much a European philosophy; your left-right scale is wonkish and unconventional and ahistorical).

If you want to understand the classic liberal mindset then try reading On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. It often comes packaged with The Subjugation of Women. You could also try things like Two Treatises of Government by John Locke and its sister, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (which provides much foundational liberal thought but comes to some conclusions that the likes of Locke and Mill would firmly reject - where there's contradiction, go with Locke), The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and Discourse on Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A lot of that stuff is really good, but a lot of it is bloody terrible. Even Mill has a weird fascination with the opera and "high art". Still, it's all important foundational stuff and was very influential in the birth of liberalism. Read them, or just summaries, and it will be clear that classic liberals were not "libertarians" in the modern political sense. Most of them did hold values that in the context of their time were progressive.

Rather than Wilson and Hoover, I would point to people like Abraham Lincoln, Henry George, William Gladstone, John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Rüstow, H.H. Asquith, David Lloyd George, Millicent Fawcett, Walter Eucken, Martin Luther King, and finally Milton Friedman as essential transitional figures between classic liberalism and modern liberalism (in addition to FDR). You could potentially throw in Tony Blair and Bill Clinton but I think they're too authoritarian, while Obama is too recent and Merkel is only coincidentally liberal. I appreciate that I'm open to a charge of hypocrisy there as I'm skewing quite heavily to British political figures.



Hyeokgeose
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2017
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 309
Location: USA

16 Dec 2017, 2:36 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Hyeokgeose wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
In another thread I said that a lot of modern extremists like to paint themselves as "classic liberals" because they either don't know what it is or they want to gain the credibility of having a semi-respectable ideology without actually changing their views.

You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in immigration controls.
You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in trade barriers.
There's no pride in being a classic liberal if you're not a feminist, if you don't support worker's rights, and if you don't want to liberalise the justice system. Some classic liberals had pretty shoddy views on some of theses things but I'm sure if you transported most of them to the modern day then they'd re-assess and change their minds.
If by "classic liberal" you mean "I'm pro-market and pro-liberty" then great, that's basically my ideology; if we disagree on one or two things then that doesn't mean you aren't a liberal. But if you mean "my views are at least 100 years out of date" then sorry, you're not a classic liberal.
In my experience, most centre-right liberal types do not call themselves classic liberals, they call themselves neoliberals or ordoliberals or Orange Bookers or just plain liberals. The people who take pride in being "classic liberals" would more accurately be called "regressive liberals".


Classical liberalism is under the umbrella term of libertarianism. On the philosophical spectrum that we use, we have collectivist ideologies on the left side of a plane and individualist ideologies on the right side. At the farthest left end would be communism (which of course has more specific ideologies under it), and at the farthest right end would be anarcho-capitalism (can be disputed). Some where on the far right, one would find classical liberalism, which to me (and thus far, those I've talked to from some political think tanks), would be the individualist philosophy that dominated the United States during the Enlightenment. So, it's more of a philosophical term as opposed to utilizing out-dated platforms; thus, we apply individualist philosophy from the Enlightenment to modern times. In short, we aren't feminists, socialists, etc. We advocate for a small federal government that is decentralized, and advocate for states' rights. I would say we revitalize "The Spirit of 1776" (per the name of my work-in-progress blog, hehe).

Neoliberals come from the Reagan-era Republicans, or also known as today's conservatives (Reagan, Thatcher -- those folks). Modern liberals refer to figures such as Zinnists (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton), and I would include Wilson, FDR, and Hoover with them (ultimately, they're the fathers of "progressive" policy).

A good book to understand classical liberals would be "The Libertarian Mind" by David Boaz. Libertarianism is the modern term for a classical liberal. Don't confuse it with the Libertarian Party -- many do that. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has abandoned principles over time, just like the two mainstream parties, and in my opinion, should not call itself the Libertarian Party anymore -- or at least, the "[Closest-you'll-get-to-a] Libertarian Party."


Nothing you've said here is new to me, except for the term "Zinnist" which Google seems to think is either the German word for tin or a misspelling of "Zionist". I would disagree with much of it (the term "neoliberal" pre-dates Reagan and Thatcher and traditionally referred to people closer to Obama and Clinton; your view is extremely US-centric while classic liberalism was very much a European philosophy; your left-right scale is wonkish and unconventional and ahistorical).

If you want to understand the classic liberal mindset then try reading On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. It often comes packaged with The Subjugation of Women. You could also try things like Two Treatises of Government by John Locke and its sister, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (which provides much foundational liberal thought but comes to some conclusions that the likes of Locke and Mill would firmly reject - where there's contradiction, go with Locke), The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and Discourse on Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A lot of that stuff is really good, but a lot of it is bloody terrible. Even Mill has a weird fascination with the opera and "high art". Still, it's all important foundational stuff and was very influential in the birth of liberalism. Read them, or just summaries, and it will be clear that classic liberals were not "libertarians" in the modern political sense. Most of them did hold values that in the context of their time were progressive.

Rather than Wilson and Hoover, I would point to people like Abraham Lincoln, Henry George, William Gladstone, John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Rüstow, H.H. Asquith, David Lloyd George, Millicent Fawcett, Walter Eucken, Martin Luther King, and finally Milton Friedman as essential transitional figures between classic liberalism and modern liberalism (in addition to FDR). You could potentially throw in Tony Blair and Bill Clinton but I think they're too authoritarian, while Obama is too recent and Merkel is only coincidentally liberal. I appreciate that I'm open to a charge of hypocrisy there as I'm skewing quite heavily to British political figures.


Per paragraph:

1. Yes, my views are centered around the US because I do not meddle in the politics of any countries besides the US and Korea (I'm mixed), and some case studies. As for Zinnist, that is not a common term -- it's been thrown around think tanks and by some figures to describe, to an extent, modern liberalism in America. Named after Howard Zinn, the one who we credit for revisionist history in America. My left-right scale uses the philosophical spectrum, which isn't really used much outside the U.S. To say it's wonkish is absurd, in my opinion, since it has very logical grounds, whereas the one that is popular among Europeans or the American left, is truly the wonkish one since it's inconsistent and bent for political purposes (i.e. puts anything they hate on the "far-right" -- e.g. national socialists, who, are indeed socialist and did implement collectivist philosophy into their socioeconomic platform, so it makes no sense to lump them in with those who believe in small government). There's also the political spectrum that is based off of policy, which will vary place to place.
I know some Europeans use the philosophical spectrum, since I've seen them use it (such as the creator of politicalcompass.org, though theirs is a bit weird and heavily Marxist-biased).
Classical liberalism was alive and well in the United States -- to imply or suggest that it is solely a European philosophy is very, very wrong. The United States was a country birthed from the Enlightenment. Yes, the Enlightenment came from Europe and the philosophers did as well -- the land that would become the US had not been colonized for that long.

2. I've read Two Treatises of Government, Common Sense, and read a chunk of Common Sense. I've also read countless essays from various people from various points in time. I understand the classical liberal mindset, I am a classical liberal -- I interact with think tanks full of classical liberals. Frankly, I don't understand your view at all -- you're the first person I've encountered that's claimed that modern classical liberals are not classical liberals, and that classical liberals should be advocating for modern feminism and workers' rights (from what I understand, the implication you made in your previous post was of modern contexts of feminism and workers' rights).
Hobbes, from what I've read of him, holds the philosophical foundation for what makes the left-wing of the philosophical spectrum (man is inherently evil and needs a strong central authority to protect one from oneself).

3. I don't think you understand that modern liberals are not, by any means, liberal in the traditional sense -- it's evident we're coming from two different viewpoints here. From my viewpoint, classical liberals advocate for
minimal government and great individual liberty. Modern liberals are very collectivist.

I still remain firm that libertarians follow classical liberalism, using the exact same philosophy. I will emphasize this: don't mix up Libertarian with libertarian, far too many people do. Capitalized 'L' refers to the party in America, which has abandoned principle for the party.


Edit:
I never covered your examples given per person; but, I will say: by no means are FDR, Clinton, and Obama, liberty-loving individualists. Very staunch collectivists. Also, FDR followed Hoover's footsteps in his policies.


_________________
"It’s not until they tell you you’re going to die soon that you realize how short life is. Time is the most valuable thing in life because it never comes back. And whether you spend it in the arms of a loved one or alone in a prison-cell, life is what you make of it. Dream big."
-Stefán Karl Stefánsson
10 July, 1975 - 21 August, 2018.


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

16 Dec 2017, 3:10 am

Hyeokgeose wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Hyeokgeose wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
In another thread I said that a lot of modern extremists like to paint themselves as "classic liberals" because they either don't know what it is or they want to gain the credibility of having a semi-respectable ideology without actually changing their views.

You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in immigration controls.
You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in trade barriers.
There's no pride in being a classic liberal if you're not a feminist, if you don't support worker's rights, and if you don't want to liberalise the justice system. Some classic liberals had pretty shoddy views on some of theses things but I'm sure if you transported most of them to the modern day then they'd re-assess and change their minds.
If by "classic liberal" you mean "I'm pro-market and pro-liberty" then great, that's basically my ideology; if we disagree on one or two things then that doesn't mean you aren't a liberal. But if you mean "my views are at least 100 years out of date" then sorry, you're not a classic liberal.
In my experience, most centre-right liberal types do not call themselves classic liberals, they call themselves neoliberals or ordoliberals or Orange Bookers or just plain liberals. The people who take pride in being "classic liberals" would more accurately be called "regressive liberals".


Classical liberalism is under the umbrella term of libertarianism. On the philosophical spectrum that we use, we have collectivist ideologies on the left side of a plane and individualist ideologies on the right side. At the farthest left end would be communism (which of course has more specific ideologies under it), and at the farthest right end would be anarcho-capitalism (can be disputed). Some where on the far right, one would find classical liberalism, which to me (and thus far, those I've talked to from some political think tanks), would be the individualist philosophy that dominated the United States during the Enlightenment. So, it's more of a philosophical term as opposed to utilizing out-dated platforms; thus, we apply individualist philosophy from the Enlightenment to modern times. In short, we aren't feminists, socialists, etc. We advocate for a small federal government that is decentralized, and advocate for states' rights. I would say we revitalize "The Spirit of 1776" (per the name of my work-in-progress blog, hehe).

Neoliberals come from the Reagan-era Republicans, or also known as today's conservatives (Reagan, Thatcher -- those folks). Modern liberals refer to figures such as Zinnists (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton), and I would include Wilson, FDR, and Hoover with them (ultimately, they're the fathers of "progressive" policy).

A good book to understand classical liberals would be "The Libertarian Mind" by David Boaz. Libertarianism is the modern term for a classical liberal. Don't confuse it with the Libertarian Party -- many do that. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has abandoned principles over time, just like the two mainstream parties, and in my opinion, should not call itself the Libertarian Party anymore -- or at least, the "[Closest-you'll-get-to-a] Libertarian Party."


Nothing you've said here is new to me, except for the term "Zinnist" which Google seems to think is either the German word for tin or a misspelling of "Zionist". I would disagree with much of it (the term "neoliberal" pre-dates Reagan and Thatcher and traditionally referred to people closer to Obama and Clinton; your view is extremely US-centric while classic liberalism was very much a European philosophy; your left-right scale is wonkish and unconventional and ahistorical).

If you want to understand the classic liberal mindset then try reading On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. It often comes packaged with The Subjugation of Women. You could also try things like Two Treatises of Government by John Locke and its sister, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (which provides much foundational liberal thought but comes to some conclusions that the likes of Locke and Mill would firmly reject - where there's contradiction, go with Locke), The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and Discourse on Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A lot of that stuff is really good, but a lot of it is bloody terrible. Even Mill has a weird fascination with the opera and "high art". Still, it's all important foundational stuff and was very influential in the birth of liberalism. Read them, or just summaries, and it will be clear that classic liberals were not "libertarians" in the modern political sense. Most of them did hold values that in the context of their time were progressive.

Rather than Wilson and Hoover, I would point to people like Abraham Lincoln, Henry George, William Gladstone, John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Rüstow, H.H. Asquith, David Lloyd George, Millicent Fawcett, Walter Eucken, Martin Luther King, and finally Milton Friedman as essential transitional figures between classic liberalism and modern liberalism (in addition to FDR). You could potentially throw in Tony Blair and Bill Clinton but I think they're too authoritarian, while Obama is too recent and Merkel is only coincidentally liberal. I appreciate that I'm open to a charge of hypocrisy there as I'm skewing quite heavily to British political figures.


Per paragraph:

1. Yes, my views are centered around the US because I do not meddle in the politics of any countries besides the US and Korea (I'm mixed), and some case studies. As for Zinnist, that is not a common term -- it's been thrown around think tanks and by some figures to describe, to an extent, modern liberalism in America. Named after Howard Zinn, the one who we credit for revisionist history in America. My left-right scale uses the philosophical spectrum, which isn't really used much outside the U.S. To say it's wonkish is absurd, in my opinion, since it has very logical grounds, whereas the one that is popular among Europeans or the American left, is truly the wonkish one since it's inconsistent and bent for political purposes (i.e. puts anything they hate on the "far-right" -- e.g. national socialists, who, are indeed socialist and did implement collectivist philosophy into their socioeconomic platform, so it makes no sense to lump them in with those who believe in small government). There's also the political spectrum that is based off of policy, which will vary place to place.
I know some Europeans use the philosophical spectrum, since I've seen them use it (such as the creator of politicalcompass.org, though theirs is a bit weird and heavily Marxist-biased).
Classical liberalism was alive and well in the United States -- to imply or suggest that it is solely a European philosophy is very, very wrong. The United States was a country birthed from the Enlightenment. Yes, the Enlightenment came from Europe and the philosophers did as well -- the land that would become the US had not been colonized for that long.

2. I've read Two Treatises of Government, Common Sense, and read a chunk of Common Sense. I've also read countless essays from various people from various points in time. I understand the classical liberal mindset, I am a classical liberal -- I interact with think tanks full of classical liberals. Frankly, I don't understand your view at all -- you're the first person I've encountered that's claimed that modern classical liberals are not classical liberals, and that classical liberals should be advocating for modern feminism and workers' rights (from what I understand, the implication you made in your previous post was of modern contexts of feminism and workers' rights).
Hobbes, from what I've read of him, holds the philosophical foundation for what makes the left-wing of the philosophical spectrum (man is inherently evil and needs a strong central authority to protect one from oneself).

3. I don't think you understand that modern liberals are not, by any means, liberal in the traditional sense -- it's evident we're coming from two different viewpoints here. From my viewpoint, classical liberals advocate for
minimal government and great individual liberty. Modern liberals are very collectivist.

I still remain firm that libertarians follow classical liberalism, using the exact same philosophy. I will emphasize this: don't mix up Libertarian with libertarian, far too many people do. Capitalized 'L' refers to the party in America, which has abandoned principle for the party.


Edit:
I never covered your examples given per person; but, I will say: by no means are FDR, Clinton, and Obama, liberty-loving individualists. Very staunch collectivists. Also, FDR followed Hoover's footsteps in his policies.


Bravo! Well said!



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

16 Dec 2017, 7:02 am

kokopelli wrote:
Hyeokgeose wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Hyeokgeose wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
In another thread I said that a lot of modern extremists like to paint themselves as "classic liberals" because they either don't know what it is or they want to gain the credibility of having a semi-respectable ideology without actually changing their views.

You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in immigration controls.
You can't be a classic liberal if you believe in trade barriers.
There's no pride in being a classic liberal if you're not a feminist, if you don't support worker's rights, and if you don't want to liberalise the justice system. Some classic liberals had pretty shoddy views on some of theses things but I'm sure if you transported most of them to the modern day then they'd re-assess and change their minds.
If by "classic liberal" you mean "I'm pro-market and pro-liberty" then great, that's basically my ideology; if we disagree on one or two things then that doesn't mean you aren't a liberal. But if you mean "my views are at least 100 years out of date" then sorry, you're not a classic liberal.
In my experience, most centre-right liberal types do not call themselves classic liberals, they call themselves neoliberals or ordoliberals or Orange Bookers or just plain liberals. The people who take pride in being "classic liberals" would more accurately be called "regressive liberals".


Classical liberalism is under the umbrella term of libertarianism. On the philosophical spectrum that we use, we have collectivist ideologies on the left side of a plane and individualist ideologies on the right side. At the farthest left end would be communism (which of course has more specific ideologies under it), and at the farthest right end would be anarcho-capitalism (can be disputed). Some where on the far right, one would find classical liberalism, which to me (and thus far, those I've talked to from some political think tanks), would be the individualist philosophy that dominated the United States during the Enlightenment. So, it's more of a philosophical term as opposed to utilizing out-dated platforms; thus, we apply individualist philosophy from the Enlightenment to modern times. In short, we aren't feminists, socialists, etc. We advocate for a small federal government that is decentralized, and advocate for states' rights. I would say we revitalize "The Spirit of 1776" (per the name of my work-in-progress blog, hehe).

Neoliberals come from the Reagan-era Republicans, or also known as today's conservatives (Reagan, Thatcher -- those folks). Modern liberals refer to figures such as Zinnists (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton), and I would include Wilson, FDR, and Hoover with them (ultimately, they're the fathers of "progressive" policy).

A good book to understand classical liberals would be "The Libertarian Mind" by David Boaz. Libertarianism is the modern term for a classical liberal. Don't confuse it with the Libertarian Party -- many do that. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has abandoned principles over time, just like the two mainstream parties, and in my opinion, should not call itself the Libertarian Party anymore -- or at least, the "[Closest-you'll-get-to-a] Libertarian Party."


Nothing you've said here is new to me, except for the term "Zinnist" which Google seems to think is either the German word for tin or a misspelling of "Zionist". I would disagree with much of it (the term "neoliberal" pre-dates Reagan and Thatcher and traditionally referred to people closer to Obama and Clinton; your view is extremely US-centric while classic liberalism was very much a European philosophy; your left-right scale is wonkish and unconventional and ahistorical).

If you want to understand the classic liberal mindset then try reading On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. It often comes packaged with The Subjugation of Women. You could also try things like Two Treatises of Government by John Locke and its sister, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (which provides much foundational liberal thought but comes to some conclusions that the likes of Locke and Mill would firmly reject - where there's contradiction, go with Locke), The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, A Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and Discourse on Inequality by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A lot of that stuff is really good, but a lot of it is bloody terrible. Even Mill has a weird fascination with the opera and "high art". Still, it's all important foundational stuff and was very influential in the birth of liberalism. Read them, or just summaries, and it will be clear that classic liberals were not "libertarians" in the modern political sense. Most of them did hold values that in the context of their time were progressive.

Rather than Wilson and Hoover, I would point to people like Abraham Lincoln, Henry George, William Gladstone, John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Rüstow, H.H. Asquith, David Lloyd George, Millicent Fawcett, Walter Eucken, Martin Luther King, and finally Milton Friedman as essential transitional figures between classic liberalism and modern liberalism (in addition to FDR). You could potentially throw in Tony Blair and Bill Clinton but I think they're too authoritarian, while Obama is too recent and Merkel is only coincidentally liberal. I appreciate that I'm open to a charge of hypocrisy there as I'm skewing quite heavily to British political figures.


Per paragraph:

1. Yes, my views are centered around the US because I do not meddle in the politics of any countries besides the US and Korea (I'm mixed), and some case studies. As for Zinnist, that is not a common term -- it's been thrown around think tanks and by some figures to describe, to an extent, modern liberalism in America. Named after Howard Zinn, the one who we credit for revisionist history in America. My left-right scale uses the philosophical spectrum, which isn't really used much outside the U.S. To say it's wonkish is absurd, in my opinion, since it has very logical grounds, whereas the one that is popular among Europeans or the American left, is truly the wonkish one since it's inconsistent and bent for political purposes (i.e. puts anything they hate on the "far-right" -- e.g. national socialists, who, are indeed socialist and did implement collectivist philosophy into their socioeconomic platform, so it makes no sense to lump them in with those who believe in small government). There's also the political spectrum that is based off of policy, which will vary place to place.
I know some Europeans use the philosophical spectrum, since I've seen them use it (such as the creator of politicalcompass.org, though theirs is a bit weird and heavily Marxist-biased).
Classical liberalism was alive and well in the United States -- to imply or suggest that it is solely a European philosophy is very, very wrong. The United States was a country birthed from the Enlightenment. Yes, the Enlightenment came from Europe and the philosophers did as well -- the land that would become the US had not been colonized for that long.

2. I've read Two Treatises of Government, Common Sense, and read a chunk of Common Sense. I've also read countless essays from various people from various points in time. I understand the classical liberal mindset, I am a classical liberal -- I interact with think tanks full of classical liberals. Frankly, I don't understand your view at all -- you're the first person I've encountered that's claimed that modern classical liberals are not classical liberals, and that classical liberals should be advocating for modern feminism and workers' rights (from what I understand, the implication you made in your previous post was of modern contexts of feminism and workers' rights).
Hobbes, from what I've read of him, holds the philosophical foundation for what makes the left-wing of the philosophical spectrum (man is inherently evil and needs a strong central authority to protect one from oneself).

3. I don't think you understand that modern liberals are not, by any means, liberal in the traditional sense -- it's evident we're coming from two different viewpoints here. From my viewpoint, classical liberals advocate for
minimal government and great individual liberty. Modern liberals are very collectivist.

I still remain firm that libertarians follow classical liberalism, using the exact same philosophy. I will emphasize this: don't mix up Libertarian with libertarian, far too many people do. Capitalized 'L' refers to the party in America, which has abandoned principle for the party.


Edit:
I never covered your examples given per person; but, I will say: by no means are FDR, Clinton, and Obama, liberty-loving individualists. Very staunch collectivists. Also, FDR followed Hoover's footsteps in his policies.

Bravo! Well said!

Indeed; it is good for a nation to remind itself that the "right to be let alone" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy ) influences all other natural rights. In my opinion, it is the primary right as it addresses personal privacy.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,812
Location: Reading, England

18 Dec 2017, 10:10 am

Hyeokgeose wrote:
To say it's wonkish is absurd, in my opinion, since it has very logical grounds,

That's what makes it wonkish. You're imposing your own "logical" scale over the one that is widely used. The common one makes little sense, yes, but it's what people actually use.

If you want a logical underpinning for the left-right scale then you could try thinking of it in terms of hierarchy.
- The far right think it is good for superior groups to subject inferior groups.
- The centre-right think that hierarchy is a natural, and perhaps even desireable, consequence of people of different abilities working together to achieve the best outcomes.
- The centre-left want to flatten hierarchies a bit, but also accept that some aspects are natural, emergent, and not entirely undesirable if they achieve things.
- The far-left are completely anti-hierarchy.

Obviously most people don't consciously think of it in those terms, but it makes more sense to work with what people do think of than to try and impose your own definition and tell people that they're wrong for disagreeing.
Quote:
national socialists, who, are indeed socialist

You don't understand Nazism. There was mass privatisation and corrupt links between industry and government. It certainly wasn't capitalism (especially when you throw in the autarky and disrespect for property rights) but it also certainly wasn't socialism.
Quote:
, so it makes no sense to lump them in with those who believe in small government).

There are so many different ways to classify a political philosophy that any binary system is inevitably going to lump opposing systems together.
Quote:
I know some Europeans use the philosophical spectrum, since I've seen them use it (such as the creator of politicalcompass.org, though theirs is a bit weird and heavily Marxist-biased).

It is a weird compass, but it still puts right-authoritarians to the right.

I call your system, and practically every system, "ahistoric" in how it treats classic liberals because they generally considered themselves left-wing, to the extent that they had any conception of the idea.
Quote:
I understand the classical liberal mindset, I am a classical liberal -- I interact with think tanks full of classical liberals.

Perhaps. I don't know you. I do know that there are a lot of people out there who are in no sense "liberal" who claim that they are classic liberals when called out on their ethnic nationalism ("I'm a classic liberal BUILD THE WALL!"). For avoidance of future doubt, I'll call those people "fake classic liberals", the forebearers of liberalism as "historic liberals", and the minarchists you associate with can stay as "classic liberals".
Quote:
Frankly, I don't understand your view at all -- you're the first person I've encountered that's claimed that modern classical liberals are not classical liberals, and that classical liberals should be advocating for modern feminism and workers' rights (from what I understand, the implication you made in your previous post was of modern contexts of feminism and workers' rights).

I mean it's highly possible that we have different understandings of what constitutes worker's rights and feminism.

Liberalism is the philosophy which values maximising liberty. This means giving people the legal rights they need to protect themselves from tyranny in all its forms. Sometimes these legal rights are viewed as a reflection of natural rights.

In the workplace, people have the right to safe working conditions, to be paid on time, not have unreasonable deductions from their pay, be given reasonable adjustments for disability, etc.

In terms of feminism, people should have the same rights regardless of gender. This includes rights which one gender is usually deprived of, such as the right to own property or the right go about your life without being sexually harassed. This is very much something which historic liberals were aware of - most apparent in the case of Mill, of course.

Someone who says "I don't think we should take reasonable steps to increase the chances that men and women are given the same pay for the same work" is not staying true to historic liberal orthodoxy or to liberal principles, either on worker's rights or feminism.
Quote:
Hobbes, from what I've read of him, holds the philosophical foundation for what makes the left-wing of the philosophical spectrum (man is inherently evil and needs a strong central authority to protect one from oneself).

That's not a bad takeaway although again I'd dispute that that's a uniquely left-wing viewpoint; many right-wingers, including most right-liberals, would agree with aspects of it. Hobbes makes the case for essential parts of the liberal state like the importance of taxation and the social contract. I certainly wouldn't want to live in his dream state, which would be authoritarian as heck, but it's still an important work.

Quote:
3. I don't think you understand that modern liberals are not, by any means, liberal in the traditional sense -- it's evident we're coming from two different viewpoints here.

Yes. You live in a country with no real liberal tradition; the closest you have are Third Way types with liberal sympathies. I live in a country with a strong liberal tradition which still puts liberals into Parliament and put liberals in government as recently as 2015.

Parties like the FDP, the Lib Dems, MoDem, Alliance of Northern Ireland, Venstre of Norway, D66, and Ciudadanos are genuinely liberal. Hopefully En Marche will turn out to be too. Contrastingly, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are more than passingly concerned with liberalism, both being very broad coalitions of disparate views.
Quote:
From my viewpoint, classical liberals advocate for minimal government and great individual liberty. Modern liberals are very collectivist.

That's a very America-centric view. I'd also argue that modern liberals, and even ordinary modern Democrats, are considerably more socially liberal than any historic liberal and at least as socially liberal as "classic liberals". By way of example, would a classic liberal stand up for the rights of a trans schoolchild to use the toilet of their choice, or would they say that schools, an apparatus of the state, should be allowed to dictate which toilet a child uses? My observation when this was a hot-button issue was that it was the progressives who supported the liberal option, while self-identified classic liberals supported the state overreach.

The other question is what does "minimal" mean? Nobody says that they want the government to be bigger than it needs to be, they just disagree on how big the government needs to be.

Quote:
I still remain firm that libertarians follow classical liberalism, using the exact same philosophy.

That's the big problem with libertarianism: their philosophy hasn't evolved for 150 years.
Historic liberals had the excuse that they had to imagine a better tomorrow and postulate what would work. Of course they were wrong about lots of things. Libertarians just end up being wrong, but it's OK because they agree with someone who died before public education was a thing? Before we knew about the tragedy of the commons or excludability? Before the Great Depression, before the failure of fascism and socialism, before the invention of the internet - and yet by some magic we're led to believe that this philosophy was right about everything?

If you can't look at the last 150 year and say "OK, education is a good thing, communism is a bad thing, and we need to properly deal with externalities" then why should anyone pay attention to you?


Quote:
I never covered your examples given per person; but, I will say: by no means are FDR, Clinton, and Obama, liberty-loving individualists. Very staunch collectivists. Also, FDR followed Hoover's footsteps in his policies.

Clinton's policy platform in 2016 was basically a liberal wet dream. Obama was less liberal but still appointed some great liberal judges, introduced the ACA, signed the Paris Agreement, pursued TTIP and TPP, and made all sorts of incremental liberal improvements.