I have considered classical liberalism the closest label for me for some time, so I wanted to get this sub's advice. I oppose populism and nationalism; I believe the role of the state is to safeguard out pre-existing rights from violation by others whether public or private, foreign or domestic; I am neutral to vaguely sympathetic to immigration, and the most important issues to me are the curtailment of eminent domain, conscription, protectionism, the sex offender registry, mandatory minimum senencing, the death penalty... and abortion.

I had been planning on voting LP, who I thought were at least neutral on abortion. However, I have been looking at the platforms of the candidates on ballot, and Chase Oliver is explicitly for expanding abortion access, and I don't know if I can stomach voting for that, any more than I could stomach voting for the Republicans on crime or trade.

I therefore want to know your thoughts on what the next best alternative is - who is the most liberal among the candidates who are pro-life. I have seen the Constitution Party suggested, but from their platform they seem very pro-tariff, anti-free speech as it relates to obscenity, and a little... weird... about the "deep state" and "new world order". Ditto for American Solidarity + also add in that they're for slavery reparations and of a populist anti-corporation bent.

Ron Paul is about the only pro-life libertarian I can think of off the top of my head; is writing him in still a thing? Is there someone else I should be aware of as a possible write-in?

Or the the scope of the interstate commerce clause in general. Wickard v Filburn is probably the Supreme Court decision that expanded the federal government the most in the history of the Supreme Court.

This is kind of a mini-mini-essay that I just had on my mind and I figured other Libertarians and Classical Liberals would agree with me on,

We all know about the Declaration of Independence's guarantee to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Often it feels like we forget the fact that the declaration has a philosophical and cultural pretense built into it. The Declaration of Independence establishes that we the government's job is not to exploit the rights of the people but rather then to protect them. It is the document that tells us why we give the government power; not that the government allows us to live our own lives. It establishes that we have the right to replace a government whenever it becomes tyrannical and no longer protects the rights of the people.

The Constitution truly receives the authority and power to govern the U.S from the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Yes, the Constitution is very important and protects many of our rights that previous administrations and congresses have tried to taken away from us, but the declaration is going to be a document that lives forever. Its sociological and philosophical meaning is just so great, and really could be seen as a description of the roots of the beliefs of liberty-minded individuals.

I would be very interested to see what you guys think about this discussion. Am I just way overplaying how important the Declaration of Independence is? Anyways, thanks.

Hello, used to post here on another account to let you know.

Where would you have liked to see the money go to? Research, infrastructure, lower taxes further to amplify the economy?

Hello, used to post here on another account to let you know.

What would be some policies that you'd like to see at the national level?

Modernity and innovation didn't happen by accident. They came from ideas. The same can be said of communism, with tragic consequences. The great progress that had been made to reduce poverty, abolish slavery and make people's lives better are all down to Enligtenment thinkers like John Locke.

Is there a new Locke somewhere, who can revitalise liberalism and combat the counter Enlightenment forces of the Left and Right?

I suspect that they aren't at a university. If they are, he or she will be struggling to develop liberal ideas against the conformity of critical theory.

There are think tanks in the UK and US. Some focus on education like FEE and the John Locke Institute but we are yet to see the emergence of a major thinker. Are they there? How do nurture them and find them?

👀👀

Note, this is merely my personal opinion and I am open to conversation here. As a bisexual man, Christian, and a “libertarian”/classical liberal, I have always viewed all these things more so happening parts of me than anything else. My bisexuality never had a massive impact on my life and or views on politics, religion, etc. So I am simply choosing to lay out my thoughts here, and give my personal perspective on this issue. Note, I am well aware the title is a bit menacing, but I don’t know how else to describe this phenomenon. Alright let’s begin with my key points here

For the longest time, the LGBT has been fighting for the recognition they deserve, for the natural rights they were given by nature, but were neglected by the state. For many years, the lgbt did all of this, they stood steadfast against the collectivist stereotypes which stood against them, and presented their arguments with firmness and integrity. For a long time, this was working, it was working so much that homosexuality became decriminalised or completely legalized in most western nations by the 2000s and even in my home country of South Africa, this succeeded and resulted in gay marriage being protected and recognised in 2006. So in the last 15 or so years…. Instead of valuing the freedoms they always had but never had the freedom to practice until recently… the lgbt community decided to piss against the wind, and attempted to undo what they have done, whether intentional or not, by censoring of the Christian right(which mind you I strongly dislike) and even attacking well meaning people who just made a single mistake… and then, just to make the shit worst FAR FAR WORSE, they started ostracising individuals within the community with a different perspective to their nonsense. And then lgbt in the west decided to gear towards socialism, which, is just turning more and more away from recognising and accepting the lgbt. So in a span of just 14 or so years, the LGBT has essentially started to reverse all progress they made in ensuring their freedoms, with more and more individuals opposing lgbt person’s individual rights and viewing them as a toxic influence.

I think we can trace this back to a certain root causes, which I think explains the problem quite well. The culture wars, a victimhood mentality, and of course, worst of all… the thing which is killing the lgbt’s long term success…. A refusal to a knowledge individual opinions, and engage respectfully with differing perspectives. Instead of embracing classical liberalism, or just even a more centrist form of intellectual liberalism, the lgbt steered and dived into the complete opposite direction as previously stated…. They went towards socialism and authoritarianism within their own ranks…. The lgbt has become friendly with the same moral evils which caused us much pain and suffering in the past..

So the solution to the problem is clear, but hasn’t been talked about… we need to end the entire shtick of victimisation, as in most democratic states, we hold equal rights, we need to embrace ideas of freedom of thought and intellectual exchange instead of simply silencing those who oppose us. We need, in other words, to make the LGBT classically liberal, again. Instead of focusing on the grander collective within the lgbt, we need to focus on individual autonomy(this doesn’t just apply to the lgbt but applies to the whole of society). We need to stop the dogmatism, and we need to embrace ideas of private property, and through intellectualism, we can, albeit slowly… take out the socialists who do nothing but harm us with their own demented ideas.

So yes, the lgbt needs to embrace classical liberalism, or face extinction.

~the end

Currently, I read AIER, FEE and the Brownstone Institute on a regular basis. Any other classical liberal sites people would recommend for comment on politics.

I had never heard of Any Rand until my early thirties. I don't know if this is because I am a Brit and she is more widely known in the US. She came up in a conversation with an American friend who is a film nut. I hadn't seen the Foudntainhead and was asking about it. He told me she was a fascist. I thought this a bit odd. How did a fascist get a Hollywood film made? But I forgot about it after that. Then her name came up over the years, cited by classical liberals as influencing them.

On the face of it, I found her philosophical views difficult: she talks about self and altruism in ways most don't. In the last few months, I have been watching YouTube clips of her interviews and listening to podcasts by Rand proponents. I have discovered there is a split among them.

The interest was piqued by TIKHistory, who has been referencing Rand's thinking as a non-religious approach to philosopphy and political ideas.

At this stage I can't decide if Rand is recasting classical liberal ideas (self interest drives societal benefit, capitalism, rule of law, limited governemnt) or either taking it somewhere else or giving it a moral underpinning to replace natural rights. If the latter, I can;t see her argument is that much different to natural rights.

From what I understand of her views, I have always been Randian without knowing anything about her work. I am an atheist, I follow what I want to do having thought it through (that doens't mean it turned out well or was the right thing) and am pro free markets and governemnt that protects individual rights.

I am curious to know what other classical liberals make of her ideas and work.

I recently watched this video by ShortFatOtaku on YouTube where he explains why he's not a libertarian (despite having a lot of libertarian audience members). The main point of his argument is that he believes the distinction libertarians and some liberals make between 'positive' and 'negative' rights/freedoms isn't actually a coherent one.

For example, he cites the right to education many believe people should have. A 'positive' way to formulate this is the 'freedom to be educated'. He contends that this is essentially equivalent to the negative formulation of the 'freedom from ignorance'. In which case, presumably, it would be inconsistent to support one but oppose the other.

What do you all make of his argument?

Edit: I kept thinking about his arguments and decided to write something about it.