https://reason.com/2024/07/24/the-problem-is-spending-libertarian-presidential-nominee-chase-olivers-vision-for-the-future/

"Cutting spending is what's important," he says "We're not going to tax our way out of this problem. We could tax everybody to 100 percent—all the millionaires and billionaires that are 'not paying their fair share'—and that would fund the government for just a few weeks. The problem is spending, not taxing."

Maybe it's just because I was young and wasn't fully aware of the situation (I was still in high school during the time perioud I'm about to describe), but It seemed to me that during the Obama era the Republican party looked to be heading towards classical liberalism. Ron Paul, probably the most classically liberal presidential candidate of the past decade, was at the height of his popularity during the 2012 election. In addition, you also had guys like Rand Paul and Justin Amash coming into congress, and Gary Johnson starting up a presidential bid. Now obviously these aren't the most classically liberal politicians, but it's a start. I kind of thought at the time that a more classically liberal/libertarian wing was going to form in the Republican party, similar to how the super progressive wing of the Democrats stated to form. Instead, the Republican party decided to the complete opposite direction and go "You know what? We're just gonna go completely fucking crazy," what happened? Was I misguided in my belief that the Republican party would come closer to classically liberal ideas? Or did some of you feel this way as well?

With Donald Trumps pick of JD Vance for Vice President, it’s worth looking into the flavor of conservatism that Vance represents.

Which is to say, it’s not American conservatism at all but Old World, anti-liberal conservatism.

The various labels they adopt will clue you in enough to what they’re about. National Conservatism, Post-Liberalism, the New Right, Common Good Constitutionalism & Aristopopulism.

They’re led by thinkers like Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen & Harvard professor Adrian Vermeule who in their own words are trying to purge classical liberal thought from modern American conservatism.

“Heartening to play a role in ejecting JS Mill from the conservative pantheon. Locke? Check. Mill? Check. Once you understand that conservatism is the antithesis of liberalism, then you can more easily identify its foes.” - Patrick Deneen, on X, 5/10/23

It’s an alarming, relatively new & aggressive faction in Republican circles that we should be aware of.

The government can't be held to a lower standard than private businesses.

I’ve seen multiple different books on the political position of Classical Liberalism around the internet, but I would like to have some recommendations from the people here on what books I should read.

They can be contemporary works from the last three decades, but I’ve read quite a few Classic Fiction novels from the 19th century, so feel free to recommend books from any time period.

I would also appreciate any books that discuss Classical Liberalism from authors that disagree in regards to political issues within the Classical Liberal ideals and how they can be resolved so that I have a more wholistic and nuanced discussion and opinion on them.

And many thanks in advance for your recommendations.

The situation of classical liberalism is dire in France at the moment and there is no sign of it getting better anytime soon. Both the far left and far right are gaining momentum year by year whlie the two liberal parties "Ensemble" and "Les Républicains" are getting rightfully unpopular. The two extremes hold dangerous anti-liberal views. My generation hold anti-liberal views. The future of France, the country that perhaps has contributed the most to enligtenent is now getting dark.

Say with COVID pandemic or the HIV/AIDS epidemic?

When I studied 19th Century British history at school, I bought into the Gladstonian liberal ideas of self-determination that led to people/countries have nation-states. Personally, I have always found the concept of an emotional commitment to country odd.

I enjoy living in Britain but have never seen myself as distinctly British. I have met people from other parts of the world and sometimes got on like a house on fire and other times have nothing in common with them. The idea that the bit of land where you are born defines you and that you should die for our country doesn't work for me.

I can see the argument for dying for what you believe in. In my case, liberty or freedom.

There are classical liberals in Britain like Dan Hannan who tie their liberalism in with the nation-state. Hannan's argument seems to be that nations are the right size to be able to ensure liberty. This seems odd as countries differ in size. Some might be suitable and others too big.

He is the author of a book called 'How We Invented Freedom and Why it Matters'. The we being the British. This seems to me to imply that there is something genetic or culture about the fact that many liberal ideas came from the British. I regard this as nonsense. Many liberal ideas came from different places. There are reasons why much of the Enlightenment stuck in Britain, the USA and the Netherlands.

All of this makes me wonder if I am not as classically liberal as I think, perhaps a bit odd or perhaps others see it the same way.

I should say, if you love your country that is fine with me. I wouldn't stop you doing that because I believe in people getting on with their lives as they wish.

Interested in other people's perspectives.

I have strong distrust for the government, I agree with libertarians and classical liberals on that, but what’s keeping corporations and the super wealthy and elite from abusing that power and wealth and violating the rights of people without a strong government?

I have three issues or questions rather for the viewpoints and understanding of classical liberals:

1. Immigration/border control —— Are open borders supported? Does a nation have a right to choose who enters its borders and attains citizenship? What’s the ideal policy?
2. Foreign Policy —— What’s the most realistic way a classical liberal would approach foreign policy issues? Is it strict isolationism? Non-interventionism? What does that mean in practice? Like from where we currently are, what do we do next and where do we go?
3. Trade —— Is protectionism or nationalist trade policies antithetical to classical liberalism? Such as Trump’s trade war with China? or embargoes, sanctions, etc. on hostile nations? or economic protection of crucial industries and jobs to American security and prosperity?

View Poll

I am interested in hearing a critique of social democracy by someone who is a capitalist.

The usual take is that without the government regulating business, companies would pay horribly low wages, make people work 16 hour shifts, fire people for injuries caused by unsafe work conditions, etc.

Considering how mindless so many people are, that may be plausible. Workers may just put up with it, and are hopeless without some government help and regulations.

However, historically, abusive companies have sometimes resulted in severe backlash from workers. This has happened before there was much government regulation, too.

Is it possible that government intervention is keeping things stagnant, and actually worse for employees, and much, much better for employers, and that sans regulation, many companies would get their just desserts? Perhaps the natural, full development of employer employee relations cannot proceed under government regulated industry?

Tl;dr is the title

Since it’s Supreme Court opinion season and there’s been a string of decisions that classical liberals should be paying attention to. Here’s a brief recap of the 5 most significant for discussion.

Garland v Cargill

Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion that the ATF exceeded its authority by reclassifying bump stocks as machine guns.

Although his argument rests on the technical definition of what a machine gun is and is not, implicit in it is a rebuke of executive lawmaking.

“ATF began considering whether to reinterpret [the] definition of “machinegun” to include bump stocks... ATF’s about face drew criticism from some observers, including those who agreed that bump stocks should be banned. Senator Dianne Feinstein, for example, warned that the ATF lacked statutory authority to prohibit bump stocks… She asserted that ‘legislation is the only way to ban bump stocks.’ ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.” - Thomas

CFPB v CFSA

Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion that the CFPB does not violate Article I of the constitution by drawing funds directly from the federal reserve.

In his opinion he recognizes that, “Congress vested the Bureau with rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicating authority,” which obviously violates the separation of powers. He also recognizes that the CFPB is unaccountable to the President & Congress, “Congress shielded the Bureau from the influence of the political branches.”

Nevertheless, Thomas argues that the 2010 Act which established the CFPB was constitutional.

“Under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the Bureau’s funding meets these requirements. We therefore conclude that the Bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause.” - Thomas

In his dissent, Alito argues that a valid appropriation must not only specify the source and purpose of the funding but also the amount and time.

Since Congress didn’t specific how much money the CFPB could draw from the Federal Reserve and when it could, he finds their funding method unconstitutional.

“[The Appropriations Clause’s] aim is to ensure that the people’s elected representatives monitor and control the expenditure of public funds and the projects they finance. Unfortunately, today’s decision turns the Appropriations Clause into a minor vestige. The Court upholds a novel statutory scheme under which the powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight. In short, there is apparently nothing wrong with a law that empowers the Executive to draw as much money as it wants from any identified source for any permissible purpose until the end of time.” - Alito

SEC v Jarkesy

Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion that the SEC violated the 7th amendment by denying defendants a jury trial.

This protects a persons right to have a jury trial, rather than just a bench trial, in cases heard by an administrative law judge.

“A defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator. Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands.” - Roberts

Murthy v Missouri

Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower courts opinion that the White House and several executive agencies violated the 1st amendment by coercing social media platforms to censor free speech.

Her argument rests on a technicality, i.e. that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue the federal agencies because it was the actions of the social media platforms, not the agencies, that caused them injury. Combined with her misguided judicial restraint, she concludes that the court has no business checking the executive branch in this case.

“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics. This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from “exercising such general legal oversight” of the other branches of Government.” - Barrett

In his dissent Alito argues the plaintiffs do have standing.

“Hines showed that, when she sued, Facebook was censoring her COVID-related posts and groups. And because the White House prompted Facebook to amend its censorship policies, Hines’ censorship was, at least in part, caused by the White House and could be redressed by an injunction against the continuation of that conduct. For these reasons, Hines met all the requirements for Article III standing.” - Alito

He concludes, “We are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents. The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what people say, hear, and think.”

Loper Bright v Raimondo

Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion overruling Chevron deference which required Article III courts to defer to the legal interpretations of executive agencies.

This restores some measure of judicial independence & impartiality in cases which an administrative state agency is involved.

“Chevron was thus a fundamental disruption of our separation of powers. It improperly strips courts of judicial power by simultaneously increasing the power of executive agencies. By overruling Chevron, we restore this aspect of our separation of powers. Although the Court finally ends our 40-year misadventure with Chevron deference, its more profound problems should not be overlooked. Regardless of what a statute says, the type of deference required by Chevron violates the Constitution.” - Thomas

I have often wondered what politicians would do a liberal (classical) administration. If everyone agrees that government should be limited and only concern itself to maintaining a legal system, some form of defence and a service that enforses the legal system, what do they do with their time once in government?

And if everyone agreed that this was a great state of affairs, why bother having elections as everyone would do the same thing? Unless the argument was over how much to spend on the things the government oversaw.

I ask as someone who is a liberal (classical) and who would be happy if we could work out how to do stuff without government entirely.