/r/Classical_Liberals

Photograph via snooOG

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law, and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.

Introduction

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law, and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.

Classical liberalism was first coined in the early 19th century, but was built on ideas of the previous century. It was a response to urbanization, and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.

Classical Liberalism generally doesn't include any socialist components (contrary to Social Liberalism) and so favors an individual's ability to distinguish themselves through hard work rather than substantial wealth redistribution. Classical Liberalism applies reasonable limits on liberty (contrary to Libertarianism) where pure individualism would be excessive for a properly functioning society.

Classical Liberalism Defined

Famous Classical Liberal Thinkers

Major Classical Liberal Parties

Classical Liberal Websites

Similar Subreddits

Subreddit AMAs

/r/Classical_Liberals

10,189 Subscribers

6

Thoughts on universal basic income/citizens dividend/negative income tax?

Whatever you want to call it, I’d argue that it fits into the framework of classical liberalism. In common sense by Thomas Paine he advocated for a citizens dividend payed for my property taxes (he referred to it as lot rent). It was also a concept advocated for by Milton Friedman.

27 Comments
2024/05/03
13:04 UTC

0

The problem with society today is that we no longer allow low-IQ women to be eaten by bears.

Idiocracy warned us about the consequences of this.

13 Comments
2024/05/03
04:02 UTC

44

Why I am Glad I Left the Libertarian Party

https://twitter.com/JoshEakle/status/1785653258263924911

Tweet too long; didn't click: "Today, Mises Caucus leaders of the Libertarian Party announced Donald Trump as the headliner for the Libertarian National Convention in May."

The MAGA take over of the Libertarian Party is now complete. We are the remnant, holding on the ideas of liberty for when the world is one again ready to hear it. But I doubt that will be in my lifetime.

58 Comments
2024/05/02
15:02 UTC

8

“Moderate” Libertarians

I asked ChatGPT to outline the differences between Classical Liberals and Libertarians.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree or disagree?

Personally, I’ve always thought of myself as a more moderate version of a libertarian (I think that a complete lack of structure would be chaos), so I think this captured it well:

“Classical liberalism and libertarianism are political ideologies that both emphasize the importance of individual liberty, but they have evolved differently and have some distinct approaches and priorities. Here’s an outline of the differences and similarities:

Similarities:

1.	Individual Liberty: Both ideologies prioritize individual freedom as a core principle, advocating for minimal interference in individuals’ lives.

2.	Limited Government: They support a government limited in its powers, stressing that its primary role should be protecting individuals’ rights, including property rights.

3.	Free Market Economy: Classical liberals and libertarians promote free market principles, arguing that economic freedom is essential for personal freedom.

4.	Rule of Law: Both uphold the importance of the rule of law, where laws are clear, public, stable, and fairly enforced.

5.	Property Rights: The protection of private property is a key component for both, viewed as essential to individual freedom and economic development.

Differences:

1.	Role of the State:

•	Classical Liberalism: Generally accepts a somewhat broader role for the state, including maintaining public goods, national defense, police, and the enforcement of contracts. They may also support limited welfare measures and government intervention in education and public health.

•	Libertarianism: Advocates for an even more reduced role for the state than classical liberalism. Some libertarians support a near-total minimization of the state (minarchism), or even its complete elimination (anarcho-capitalism), especially in terms of economic interventions.

2.	Welfare and Redistribution:

•	Classical Liberalism: More likely to accept some level of government involvement in providing a safety net for the poor, such as basic healthcare and education, as a means to preserve social stability and maintain a minimal standard of living.

•	Libertarianism: Tends to be more opposed to any form of government-enforced redistribution of income, including most forms of welfare, viewing them as infringements on individual liberties and property rights.

3.	Economic Intervention:

•	Classical Liberalism: While advocating for free markets, they are more accepting of some government interventions to correct clear market failures, uphold competition, and ensure consumer protection.

•	Libertarianism: Generally opposes almost all government intervention in the economy, holding that markets are self-regulating and that government interventions are inefficient and corrupt.

4.	Philosophical Foundations:

•	Classical Liberalism: Rooted in Enlightenment thinking, particularly the works of John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, focusing on balancing individual freedom with the necessity of some minimal governmental structure.

•	Libertarianism: While also influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, it draws heavily from more modern theorists like Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand, emphasizing an even greater skepticism of governmental power and broader applications of individualism.

Conclusion

Both classical liberalism and libertarianism champion individual liberty and free markets, but libertarians push these principles to their broader extremes, generally advocating for less government across all areas of life than classical liberals. The choice between them often hinges on differing views on the practical necessity and moral legitimacy of various government actions. “

12 Comments
2024/04/24
01:00 UTC

7

Economics is my game.

2 Comments
2024/04/22
16:49 UTC

4

Police officer accidentally shoots man while serving warrant.

0 Comments
2024/04/21
15:17 UTC

5

Suspect assaults victim. Police officer arrested, charged, and convicted.

2 Comments
2024/04/20
04:36 UTC

1

Classical Liberals on Private Prisons?

What are your guy's thoughts on private prisons? My understanding is generally that Classical Liberals are in favor of privitization, but also generally want to keep people out of prison unless absolutely neccesary. These two things seem at odds with each other on this isse, what is the Classical Liberal stance on private prisons?

16 Comments
2024/04/19
23:51 UTC

2

The Overton Window

Always interesting Jeffrey Tucker discusses the Overton Window over at Brownstone.

He asks if the concept actually works in practice and concludes that it is better to say what is "true, with sincerity, without malice".

Here's the link.

My own view, move the window to where you want it and then get some double-glazing!

5 Comments
2024/04/19
07:58 UTC

11

British Conservative party bans smoking

Here's the story.

Not very classically liberal.

18 Comments
2024/04/16
20:15 UTC

21

The sixth time

8 Comments
2024/04/16
09:55 UTC

4

Leftist "Conservative Republicans"

It astonishes me as a university student how leftist some self-proclaimed conservative republicans really are. I have recently had an interaction with a professor who acts exactly how I would expect a full-blown leftist to act. If you don't agree with her, you are the enemy. Authoritarianism and centralization of power are the tools she uses. Literally, to the point of the interference of student club's vote. I mean this is a person who claims voter fraud in the 2020 election, then turns around and intentionally interferes in an election. Sure, it's just students, but I don't understand how someone can be so hypocritical. And my final straw was when she told me in private that some of my criticism, like verbal criticism, "was practically violence." VIOLENCE! I am mind blown! I think a lot about this because I am at a very leftist university. I expected in the business department for there to be at least a bit more reasonable people, but no.

32 Comments
2024/04/13
07:01 UTC

0

Why Georgism Is Wrong

0 Comments
2024/04/10
16:16 UTC

5

Is Classical Liberalism incompatable with other forms of Liberalism? Do they have more in common with Conservatism and Libertarianism?

For example, Classical Liberalism, Social Liberalism and Neoliberalism has several difference with each other. Can they coexist with each other, or are they mutually exclusive (or they can only exist with one)?

Does Classical Liberalism have more things in common with Conservatism and Libertarianism than Social or Neoliberalism?

10 Comments
2024/04/03
05:40 UTC

9

Any studies looking into how much of the left is liberal vs how much leftist?

Is anyone aware of any studies that have looked into what proportion of people on the left are liberals and what leftists?

12 Comments
2024/03/30
13:24 UTC

0

r/NFS

I am just seeking for a serious relationship

1 Comment
2024/03/30
08:24 UTC

4

My perspective on US education in a free market

Hi everyone,

Here is a general brain dump regarding my understanding of US education and its relevant policy proposals. I am writing to expand my current knowledge of how education works in a free market by acquiring feedback on my thought process. I appreciate any help you can give me.

Education does not work the same way businesses in a free market work. To compare and contrast, I want to use the market for shoes as an example. Suppose you want a new pair of shoes. In that case, you drive to the mall or a solo shoe store to try on a pair to check the fit, look at how the colors match with your typical outfit you plan on wearing the shoes with, compare and contrast prices between different brands, and engage in a dialogue with the various salespeople in the store to acquire the most amount of information regarding shoes, their prices, and their look and feel. Education works in different ways.

For instance, you and your partner move into a new neighborhood with your child. You and your partner will probably need new jobs that fit with your current location and skillset (unless your skillset mismatches with the job market, then you will need to find something else that is suitable), coordinate errand routines that fit your schedules and living location (if you live in a food/transit desert, some more time may be required to coordinate errand routines because), and most importantly send your child to a school that is near your living location.

If you are unsatisfied with your experience at the shoe store, you can find another shoe store with minimal problems. This interaction would be different with schooling. Your child, the "customer" in this case, might have a different idea of what it means to be a "good school" than the teachers, the administrators, and the parents. Going to recess and going on Cool Math Games was my priority; I am sure some of you can relate. The "customer's" perception of quality in education may be warped because a child could not understand or articulate the proper techniques to communicate the difference between Mitosis and Meiosis or the sequence of events leading up to the Civil War. As consumers of shoes or burgers, we can tell right away what works or doesn't. We're wearing shoes that do not fit well, so we take them off and buy a new pair, or we are eating disgusting burgers, so we spit them out and go to a new restaurant. Parents could also have a warped view of quality as they may not be experts in the subject matter taught to their children, they might have difficulty articulating the proper methods to teach students, and they are also not consuming that knowledge then and there; their child is. Recognizing poor quality in education is not as straightforward as recognizing poor quality in restaurants or shoe stores.

Unless the school is hazardous, which is usually informed by the surrounding neighborhoods and cities, the parents might not know immediately that their child does not like the "educational products" they consume. As I said, some of you might not even want to go to school as children because you like having fun playing outside or going on the computer, so you might immediately say to your parents, "I don't want it," the same way you could speak to a salesperson offering you a car or a pair of shoes.

But let's say you want to switch schools as if you would find another business to go to. This process could be tricky as many other schools might be far from your neighborhood. There may be a school nearby, but they may not supply buses directly to your house, and it would be inconvenient for you to walk there as a student or for your parents to make a long commute to drop you off every day. Your parents may need to move houses completely to make the transfer, which could also be inconvenient because your parents may need to find new jobs, plan out new arrand routines, and see how you adjust to this new school and hope, assuming that their child understands education quality, you find this new institution suitable.

Hopefully, I have demonstrated that education does not work like a market. Shopping for schools is tricky because quality is not transparent, assessing "consumer feedback" (which would just be asking your kid how school went) is tricky because of a misalignment of objectives, and evaluating your options is tricky because of the massive investment it takes on the parents' part. Because of these facts, we cannot treat education in America like in other markets because education is not a market.

Broad-based privatization and school voucher systems concern me for this very reason. How can parents shop for schools using private or tax-payer-funded accounts when doing so is so inconvenient? Why should American taxpayer money go into funding family accounts that will be used for nonsecular private schools that are antithetical to our nation's values? How do parents know they made the right decision for their child and understand those metrics well enough? What about those who need help to afford private schools or shop for them? Do they stick with their nearby school while higher-income families can send their children to private schools and get a higher quality of education?

I get that school voucher systems can promote competition in theory, but according to this article that does not seem to be the case and tends to harm public schools as a result.

Marketization and privatization of schooling aren't viable options. While I prefer less government intervention and market-oriented solutions for most issues, education doesn't play by those rules. Better funding for public schools and incremental initiatives should be the way forward. Incorporating more open-note exams and project-based learning impacts students positively.

That's it for my brain dump. Please let me know if I need to be on the right track or if I need to be corrected. I will read every comment and consider your perspective. Thanks to those who got to the bottom and read everything.

21 Comments
2024/03/29
02:24 UTC

10

Do Native Americans have fair grievances? How should they be addressed?

30 Comments
2024/03/25
18:00 UTC

7

Are you optimistic about the future? Why or why not?

16 Comments
2024/03/23
16:53 UTC

0

Police sergeant slams his chief on the hood of a car.

0 Comments
2024/03/21
15:24 UTC

5

"Around us knowledge has been extinguished, and recruitment of men of religion and men of law has ceased; that is to say, we have made Muslim society much more miserable, more disordered, more ignorant, and more barbarous than it had been before knowing us." -Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville on the French conquest of Algeria.

Bonus passage:

"You remember, Monsieur, what I told you before that the whole civil and military government of the Regency was in the hands of the Turks. As soon as we were masters of Algiers, we hastened to gather every last Turk, from the Dey to the last soldier of his militia, and we transported this crowd to the coast of Asia. In order to better remove the vestiges of the enemy's domination, we proceeded to tear up or burn all written documents and administrative registers, authentic or not, which could have perpetuated a trace of what had come before us. The conquest was a new era, and for fear of irrationally mixing the past with the present, we even destroyed a large number of the streets of Algiers, in order to rebuild them according to our methods, and we gave French names to all those whom we allowed to remain...

What was the result of all this? You can easily guess.

The Turkish government possessed in Algiers a great number of houses and in the plain a multitude of estates; but their titles of ownership have disappeared in the universal wreck of the old order of things. It so happened that the French administration, knowing neither what belonged to it nor what had remained in the rightful possession of the vanquished, lacked everything or believed itself reduced to seizing at random that which it needed, in defiance of law and rights.

The Turkish government was peacefully receiving the proceeds of certain taxes which, through ignorance, we were unable to raise in their stead, and we had to draw the money we needed from France or extort it from our unfortunate subjects in ways far more Turkish than any Turk has ever used.

If our ignorance has thus made the French government irregular and oppressive in Algiers, it has made all government beyond there impossible."

Taken from his second letter on Algeria.

0 Comments
2024/03/15
23:27 UTC

1

Police officer arrests crime victim for yelling at him.

1 Comment
2024/03/14
16:24 UTC

7

The "enlightened despots" of the 18th century

The 18th-century Holy Roman Empire saw the rise of the "enlightened despots," who claimed absolute power but said that they used it for the good of the people. There are a lot of ironies. By that period, the Holy Roman Emperor didn't hold that much power (as Voltaire said, "neither holy nor Roman nor an empire"). The idea obviously doesn't lead to a stable free society, as the rulers are "enlightened" only as long as they choose to be. Joseph II introduced some real reforms but ultimately declared his reign a failure.

What I'm wondering about, though, is what philosophers rulers such as Maria Theresa and Joseph II drew on. Kant was the most prominent German enlightenment philosopher, but his views emphasized freedom over the good of all. The closest fit I know of was Hobbes, who was English. I haven't found any clear information on the "enlightened despots'" philosophical roots. Any clues?

3 Comments
2024/03/13
16:12 UTC

Back To Top