The other day, during a political discussion, someone called me a "Classical Liberal."
I have mixed feelings about this.
Anyone identify as such?
Printable View
The other day, during a political discussion, someone called me a "Classical Liberal."
I have mixed feelings about this.
Anyone identify as such?
I like the idea of it, so—sure! This makes one conveniently above most politicking because our side never wins on anything. Kind of a comfort, in a way.we dont have to take responsibilitynfor whatever assholes are in office.
Haven’t a clue what that term could mean. IL, your dry humour is so much fun.
I’m more of a 1768-vintage Whig.
This is an interesting question. It brought to mind for me this preview I watched on youtube recently titled The Gay Husbands of San Francisco. I think it was some kind of sitcom - or at least the base of one - that might start at some future date on youtube. At any rate, gay stereotypes were in abundance in the characters - the phony social climber, the druggie who lives to party, the young attractive heavy spending kept guy, the overachiever, the functional alcoholic who lives to party, the slut, the innocent Midwesterner recently arrived in town, and then, drumroll please - I saw a bit of myself - the activist. All these characters were portrayed as being liberal - but what flavor of liberal is the question?
I don't know that I am a classic-coming-from-money-Kennedy-family-type liberal - I'm much more the activist type when I'm up to it - countered by hard worker/secondhand pennypincher. Classic liberal - this phrase - conjures up images of misty Massachusetts coastal mornings or fog rolling into either Seattle or Portland or San Francisco, images that are not my current life/reality. And given current living costs in the above, and given their distance from the Mexican border, I can't see that reality in the future for me.
But I also can't see myself not being liberal. I know how easy it is to fall through the cracks and I know the dark side of America. I have to be liberal if I wish to live with myself. But Classic? Nope, doesn't fit me well. The protest signs/protest lines/activism stereotype, and it is a stereotype to some degree dating back to Aids Activism (capitalized out of respect to these courageous souls) in the Reagan era of the 80's - this fits me personally much better. But even with me, it's a one-dimensional stereotype that does not fully describe my world/reality. Rob
Classical Liberal doesnt mean Kennedy-esque liberal, Rob. This is the definition UL means, most likely:
Classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.
In current shorthand, it means one who holds views generally ascribed to Libertarians. I am pretty sure this is opposite any political stance you embrace. Unless you have made an overnight conversion, I dont see you worshipping at the alter of Adam Smith.
more on that:
Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. They were critical of what would come to be the idea of the welfare state as interfering in a free market.[12] Despite Smith’s resolute recognition of the importance and value of labor and of laborers, they selectively criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights[13] while accepting corporations' rights, which led to inequality of bargaining power.[14][15]
To shore up my credentials, I have, in fact, visited the grave of Adam Smith in the Cannongate off the
Royal Mile in Edinburgh.
There is a spectrum of positions that might be labelled "Classical Liberal".
I am at home with empirical, peace-loving, limited-state Classical Liberals.
Link to an article by Mario Rizzo, a NYU law professor who teaches seminars on this subject:
https://www.thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/libertarianism-and-classical-liberalism-is-there-a-difference
Definitions are always murky in politics. Now that socialism seems to be enjoying something of a vogue, everyone seems to define it differently. They want you to be sure they have nothing in common with those awful National Socialists or Soviet Socialists who made the century just past so interesting, but what are they really talking about?
Some seem to want Capitalism with a plumper welfare state grafted on. Others seem to prefer a dirigiste state that controls and regulates our material lives while leaving property nominally private. Others view the economy as essentially zero sum, and believe it to be government's job to equalize our situations through redistribution. As has been said, a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can usually rely on Paul's support. A hard core would like to nationalize some or all industries on the theory that governments are smarter and more disinterested than markets. From the people who want to tell you that roads are socialism, so what's the harm in a bit more, to hardcore Marxist-Leninists, one word seems to have many meanings.
Interestingly, on another online discussion in the comments of a YouTube video someone said this to me: "Wah, wah! Mah individualism! You are a Dave Rubin cuck classical liberal..." This was followed by a comment about "race-mixing" and calling me a "Jew."
So this is apparently what happens when you comment on a Red Ice video on YouTube and call them on their BS. haha
I will say this: I am a die-hard civil libertarian.