Classical liberalism

[SimonDoom]

I'm curious how many people here identify with the principles of classical liberalism, which I would describe as:

1) the belief that all people, everywhere, have fundamental rights and liberties, such as the right to life, freedom of speech and religion, economic freedom, personal freedom, etc.
2) the belief that the primary, if not sole, purpose of government, is to protect those rights and liberties.
3) the belief in a limited government of well-defined powers.

There's so much toxic partisan debate right now that it obscures the debate over something more important: what are our foundational principles? What do we most fundamentally believe, and what is government's proper job?

I don't equate classical liberalism with strict libertarianism, or with the Libertarian party. It's more of a "big tent," that encompasses a broader range of beliefs. The majority of Americans, I think, have at least many classical liberal beliefs, even if they're not consistent about what they believe.

 

[Wilson23]

The U.S. started out as a classical-liberal country. OF COURSE a lot of Americans think that way.

 

[ll74]

I subscribe to most of this. Numbers 2 and 3 have quite a bit of subjectivity built in, as the word "limited" is not succinct.

I think the part of this that I see others missing is the word "all" in regards to those outside of citizenry.

I'll probably have more to add on this later. But one thing I'll add is that I will clarify my position, but I'm not interested in debating it.

 

[Wilson23]

1) the belief that all people, everywhere, have fundamental rights and liberties, such as the right to life, freedom of speech and religion, economic freedom, personal freedom, etc.

N.B.: There is another version of that which does not even pretend to consider ALL people, or any universal principles, but roots classical liberalism in British and British-derived culture and traditions.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies

 

[Cat]

I'm curious how many people here identify with the principles of classical liberalism, which I would describe as:

1) the belief that all people, everywhere, have fundamental rights and liberties, such as the right to life, freedom of speech and religion, economic freedom, personal freedom, etc.
2) the belief that the primary, if not sole, purpose of government, is to protect those rights and liberties.
3) the belief in a limited government of well-defined powers.

There's so much toxic partisan debate right now that it obscures the debate over something more important: what are our foundational principles? What do we most fundamentally believe, and what is government's proper job?

I don't equate classical liberalism with strict libertarianism, or with the Libertarian party. It's more of a "big tent," that encompasses a broader range of beliefs. The majority of Americans, I think, have at least many classical liberal beliefs, even if they're not consistent about what they believe.

Oh... I just made a post about this yesterday.

Cool.

I think that we in Europe are still using the classic political definitions.

Which is why we often find ourselves baffled when you guys have changed the original definitions.

 

[Wilson23]

Oh... I just made a post about this yesterday.

Cool.

I think that we in Europe are still using the classic political definitions.

Which is why we often find ourselves baffled when you guys have changed the original definitions.

"Liberal" means something close to "Libertarian" in Europe, something close to "Social Democrat" in America.

 

[Cat]

"Liberal" means something close to "Libertarian" in Europe, something close to "Social Democrat" in America.

.... What definitions are you using?

A social democrat is.. well a social democrat. And most definitely not the same as classical liberal.

Liberals wants more freedom, less government, less taxes, no welfare state..

This seems to be how we understand liberalism (at least in Denmark and the North)
As a yellow policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

[SimonDoom]

This seems to be how we understand liberalism (at least in Denmark and the North)
As a yellow policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

What does that mean -- "yellow policy"? I'm not familiar with that.

The US has never been comfortable with terms like "the left" or "socialism." It's very different from Europe in this sense. More often than not, using these terms has been the death-knell for electoral success. So the term "liberalism" was coopted in the 20th century, to mean something very different from what it meant in the 19th century. For the last 70 years or so, using the term "liberal" in America would typically conjure up images of Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson or John Kenneth Galbraith rather than Adam Smith.

 

[Wilson23]

.... What definitions are you using?

A social democrat is.. well a social democrat. And most definitely not the same as classical liberal.

Liberals wants more freedom, less government, less taxes, no welfare state..

This seems to be how we understand liberalism (at least in Denmark and the North)
As a yellow policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

In the U.S. "liberalism" more often means SOCIAL liberalism. Welfare state, DEI, minority rights, etc.

 

[Wilson23]

N.B.: The poilitical spectrum does NOT from from an authoritarian left to a libertarian right or vice-versa.

The political spectrum runs from an EGALITARIAN left to a HIERARCHICAL right.

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/the-political-spectrum.1646593/

 

[Cat]

What does that mean -- "yellow policy"? I'm not familiar with that.

The US has never been comfortable with terms like "the left" or "socialism." It's very different from Europe in this sense. More often than not, using these terms has been the death-knell for electoral success. So the term "liberalism" was coopted in the 20th century, to mean something very different from what it meant in the 19th century. For the last 70 years or so, using the term "liberal" in America would typically conjure up images of Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson or John Kenneth Galbraith rather than Adam Smith.

In the U.S. "liberalism" more often means SOCIAL liberalism. Welfare state, DEI, minority rights, etc.

Okay, cooking time here, but to me.. This it's akin to a stew where you guys have taken a lot of different things and baked it all together to mean something all together new.

Also, this is probably a subject I need to ask some questions about:
Does that mean that it is only the American liberals that cares about DEI, minority rights and so on?

Again - Yellow is the colour that is associated with liberalism (classical liberalism) in Europe.
Like red is associated with the red politics (socialism)
Social democracy being a bit of a bastard, because that is so centre/moderate, that you could call it purple.
Conservatism is blue,
The greens are.. Well.. Green!

But again, the US differs from the rest of the world and has made your own definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour

(Yes, and we Europeans are trying to understand it and not get too lost.)

Also, Orban is illiberal.

 

[Wilson23]

Does that mean that it is only the American liberals that cares about DEI, minority rights and so on?

Absolutely. Any American who cares about those things will claim the name of "liberal" and anybody who does not will reject it.

 

[Wilson23]

Also, Orban is illiberal.

Orban is PRE-liberal -- he represents something much older and more primitive.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I'm curious how many people here identify with the principles of classical liberalism, which I would describe as:

1) the belief that all people, everywhere, have fundamental rights and liberties, such as the right to life, freedom of speech and religion, economic freedom, personal freedom, etc.
2) the belief that the primary, if not sole, purpose of government, is to protect those rights and liberties.
3) the belief in a limited government of well-defined powers.

There's so much toxic partisan debate right now that it obscures the debate over something more important: what are our foundational principles? What do we most fundamentally believe, and what is government's proper job?

I don't equate classical liberalism with strict libertarianism, or with the Libertarian party. It's more of a "big tent," that encompasses a broader range of beliefs. The majority of Americans, I think, have at least many classical liberal beliefs, even if they're not consistent about what they believe.

My attitude is to be as empirical as possible. Rather than ideological.

I think the word ‘limited’ is ideological and I don’t see any advantage in striving towards a government that is limited just for the sake of an abstract concept like 'limited-ness'.

I’d start with the question: what type of govt creates the most opportunity for individuals? And then what creates the most trust, longest life expectancy, lowest rates of poverty - all markers of a happy, stable country?

I care about those things more than ideological purity.

For the most part, social democracy has proven itself at answering those questions most successfully: it leaves the economy to the private sector but implements high taxation to make sure the economic gains are enjoyed by everyone - which creates more opportunity and more economic gains. It creates virtuous circles not vicious ones.

 

[Wilson23]

I’d start with the question: what type of govt creates the most opportunity for individuals? And then what creates the most trust, longest life expectancy, lowest rates of poverty - all markers of a happy, stable country?

N.B.: The answers to those two questions might be very different and even incompatible. That is what all of this comes DOWN to.

 

[SimonDoom]

Also, this is probably a subject I need to ask some questions about:
Does that mean that it is only the American liberals that cares about DEI, minority rights and so on?

It depends on what you mean by these rights. To the extent that "DEI" encompasses policies based on group identity rather than individual rights, it would not be "liberal" in the sense that I mean it. In the US the political parties all claim to support minority rights, but in different ways. The confusion arises because neither of the two major political parties represents "liberalism" in the classical sense.

But again, the US differs from the rest of the world and has made your own definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour

The Libertarian party in the US aligns itself with the color yellow, but almost no Americans know this.

The Green Party has very little presence or importance in the US, so the color green doesn't mean much politically to most Americans.

The color red has come to be identified with the Republicans, the conservative party, while the color blue has come to be identified with the Democrats, the more left party.

Also, Orban is illiberal.

This is definitely true, by any definition of "liberal."

 

[Wilson23]

The Libertarian party in the US aligns itself with the color yellow, but almost no Americans know this.

I've never seen their logo in any color but blue.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've never seen their logo in any color but blue.

check out the LP.org website. check out the wiki page on the libertarian party. Yellow is the color associated with the party.

 

[JohnEngelman]

1) the belief that all people, everywhere, have fundamental rights and liberties, such as the right to life, freedom of speech and religion, economic freedom, personal freedom, etc.

3) the belief in a limited government of well-defined powers.

Economic freedom and limited government need to be precisely defined.

If they mean no minimum wage laws, no laws to protect labor unions, no laws to protect the environment, and ending or defunding Social Security and Medicare I am opposed to them.

"Freedom" sounds nice. When people say they want freedom I want to know answers to this question:

Freedom for who to do what?

 

[Baztrachian]

I'm curious how many people here identify with the principles of classical liberalism, which I would describe as:

1) the belief that all people, everywhere, have fundamental rights and liberties, such as the right to life, freedom of speech and religion, economic freedom, personal freedom, etc.
2) the belief that the primary, if not sole, purpose of government, is to protect those rights and liberties.
3) the belief in a limited government of well-defined powers.

There's so much toxic partisan debate right now that it obscures the debate over something more important: what are our foundational principles? What do we most fundamentally believe, and what is government's proper job?

I don't equate classical liberalism with strict libertarianism, or with the Libertarian party. It's more of a "big tent," that encompasses a broader range of beliefs. The majority of Americans, I think, have at least many classical liberal beliefs, even if they're not consistent about what they believe.

This.

 

[Baztrachian]

The color red has come to be identified with the Republicans, the conservative party, while the color blue has come to be identified with the Democrats, the more left party.

Up until the 1990's the electoral maps in the US always portrayed Republican states as blue and Democrat states as red.

Then the media flipped the script and collectively changed the politically representative colors. Then they rolled out a raft of propaganda in the movies and in the media critical of red states. What they did not expect was for conservatives to seize on the label and wear it with pride.

 

[Wilson23]

Here's the thing: American political culture is all about LIBERTY. That goes back to independence. The purpose of the Constitution is to "preserve the blessing of Liberty."

And too many Americans equate "liberty" with classical liberalism.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

“Liberal,” “libertarian,” and “social democrat” are labels. Meanings have shifted historically and varied by country. Conflating them flattens important political and class differences.

A Marxist reply locates these terms in their class roots and political content -- who they defend, what social order they seek to preserve or transform, and what tactics they use.

These differences matter because labels conceal class content. For workers and socialists, the crucial question is: does the tendency defend the capitalist property relations and the capitalist state, or does it aim to organize the working class for its independent political emancipation?

Whether in the US “liberal Democrats” or European liberal parties, they often as a layer defend the interests of privileged social strata and colludes with austerity, privatization and nationalist scapegoating. This shows how a self-described “liberal” press and parties can function to shift debate to the right and manage class antagonisms.

Lenin’s critique of Economism makes a related point re: putting narrow trade-union or reformist tactics at the center prevents a genuinely political and revolutionary education of the working class. Today, the ruling class relies on "liberal" or social-democratic reformist constrains to thwart the political independence of workers and to subordinate their struggle to bourgeois institutions.

Determining the 'meaning' of these words requires knowing not only their history but also their class roots as set forth in Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. The method of historical materialism is essential to knowing how class interests are reflected. Then one must analyze practice, not labels. Program, alliances, social base and state role -- those are the essentials.

Learn the history and class roots: read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to grasp the method of historical materialism. Engels’ essay above is essential on how ideas reflect class interests. Who benefits from this politics? Does it strengthen capitalist rule, or working-class independence? Those are the questions to ask.

Without that, the labels mean to obfuscate and conceal class intent.

 

[Wilson23]

Lenin’s critique of Economism makes a related point re: putting narrow trade-union or reformist tactics at the center prevents a genuinely political and revolutionary education of the working class. Today, the ruling class relies on "liberal" or social-democratic reformist constrains to thwart the political independence of workers and to subordinate their struggle to bourgeois institutions.

They don't stop THERE -- they're not above direct union-busting.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Economic freedom and limited government need to be precisely defined.

If they mean no minimum wage laws, no laws to protect labor unions, no laws to protect the environment, and ending or defunding Social Security and Medicare I am opposed to them.

"Freedom" sounds nice. When people say they want freedom I want to know answers to this question:

Freedom for who to do what?

Honestly, these days, when I hear someone argue for free speech, my first question is 'what are you trying to hide?' because 9 times out of 10 they are arguing for an avalanche of lies and disinformation in order to hide their true agenda.