I shouldn't even have to call it classical liberalism. I have found myself drifting towards the classical liberal philosophy. Of course, I realize that labels are altogether meaningless since if you go around telling people you're a classical liberal regardless of what people think on here at www.mises.org other people will just think you're a right-wing nutjob.
But, I think that the classical liberal philosophy is perfectly justifiable. It may require a little bit more government activities or regulation than an all-out libertarian society or an all-out anarcho-capitalist society would but I think it's certainly a justifiable minarchist position. It seems that there are so many more radical anarchists on here (I don't mean to sound like that's a bad thing)... than there are liberals. I think the Hayakean liberal philosophy is perfectly justifiable. It seems as if to me that people on here have somewhat of an aversion to it. What's up with that?
It just asks for some fraud laws, and, a legal system, and laws requiring that competition be allowed. I know that some people here wouldn't want any kind of laws regulating anything at all in the market or anything like that. But... it just doesn't take the dogmatic approach to the market that some people take. It asks that the market provides for the common good and not deceive consumers.
It asks for free trade, the free movement of labor, and equality under the law. Not all libertarians agree with the concept of natural rights. But I think that the liberal philosophy would be most realistic in today's political environment. We have yet to achieve the free movement of labor goal of liberalism... and we have yet to achieve some of the other goals... but I think what it calls for is reasonable.
It's compatible with libertarianism in that it wishes for states to live in peace. It holds that war is disruptive to the peaceful coalition among states. That's kind of what libertarians say when they talk about the NAP.
And I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong forum, but, I would like to know why there are a lot less liberals on here than anarcho-capitalists, or libertarians.
If I thought the term "classical liberal" meant anything to people I would call myself that. Instead, I just tell people I'm a minarchist. It's easier to explain and the terminology doesn't get in the way. When people think liberal they think Obama.
bloomj31: If I thought the term "classical liberal" meant anything to people I would call myself that. Instead, I just tell people I'm a minarchist. It's easier to explain and the terminology doesn't get in the way. When people think liberal they think Obama.
It's unfortunate that people think like that. But the problem I have is that when people think of classical liberalism they think of conservative republicans, and, of corporatism. I wish that these people would spend a good and long and hard look about what classical liberalism is, and then, see how far to a fascist state we've become, and, how far-right these Republicans really are. They need to stop assuming that conservatism is synonymous with classical liberalism because conservatism with its views on morality is an antithesis to classical liberalism.
I was just wondering why there are less people on here willing to justify the classical liberal philosophy. I find it to be quite rational, and it has a set of clear goals and plans that it wishes to pursue that make it defensible. Of course I'm not a blind ideologue, and, I disagree with a number of things about the classical liberal philosophy... but I think it's certainly justifiable.
I think I've officially made the transition from minarchist to anarchist rather recently, myself. I simply couldn't get around the fact that I can't reasonably reconcile how everything the state is involved in is either inefficient and/or corrupt or coercive, regardless of how limited it may be.
Cabal: I think I've officially made the transition from minarchist to anarchist rather recently, myself. I simply couldn't get around the fact that I can't reasonably reconcile how everything the state is involved in is either inefficient and/or corrupt or coercive, regardless of how limited it may be.
It's all about how one sees the world imo.
SilentXtarian: It's unfortunate that people think like that. But the problem I have is that when people think of classical liberalism they think of conservative republicans, and, of corporatism. I wish that these people would spend a good and long and hard look about what classical liberalism is, and then, see how far to a fascist state we've become, and, how far-right these Republicans really are. They need to stop assuming that conservatism is synonymous with classical liberalism because conservatism with its views on morality is an antithesis to classical liberalism. I was just wondering why there are less people on here willing to justify the classical liberal philosophy. I find it to be quite rational, and it has a set of clear goals and plans that it wishes to pursue that make it defensible. Of course I'm not a blind ideologue, and, I disagree with a number of things about the classical liberal philosophy... but I think it's certainly justifiable.
I don't really have a very good answer to your question. I do know that there seem to be many more anarchists on here than minarchists. Why this is so? I have no idea.
I know that it can be hard for me to explain my positions because they're not always based on reason and logic as much as they are based on faith. Not necessarily in God but in human nature and the way the world works. So they are positions that can be very hard to articulate. At least for me. Maybe that's why less of us are drawn to online forums.
I am new to this forum ( but more than 5 years on the site) and I thought the same thing.
While I agree with the theory of anarchy, I find it utopian. I believe the only chance at this time to get closer to liberty is small steps. As someone once said, "if there were a button I would push it".
I am kind of disapointed in the all or nothing vibe I have gotten. But I do understand it
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
SilentXtarian: I think the Hayakean liberal philosophy is perfectly justifiable. It seems as if to me that people on here have somewhat of an aversion to it. What's up with that?
Because most people on this board are Rothbardian rationalists, and the two views of society are diametrically opposed.
SilentXtarian:I would like to know why there are a lot less liberals on here than anarcho-capitalists, or libertarians.
Considering myself a liberal in the Hayekian tradition, I spend less and less time here because I have noticed I simply value the views of those I can speak with in person more than those I have found here. Not only are the conversations in person more on topic, but they also tend to be more interesting and actually tend to be on a wider variety of topics than those here. As above, the Hayekian and Rothbardian views of the world are diametrically opposed, and while they may agree on certain programs, their methods are completely different paradigms.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:Considering myself a liberal in the Hayekian tradition, I spend less and less time here because I have noticed I simply value the views of those I can speak with in person more than those I have found here. Not only are the conversations in person more on topic, but they also tend to be more interesting and actually tend to be on a wider variety of topics than those here.
You're very lucky.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric: laminustacitus:Considering myself a liberal in the Hayekian tradition, I spend less and less time here because I have noticed I simply value the views of those I can speak with in person more than those I have found here. Not only are the conversations in person more on topic, but they also tend to be more interesting and actually tend to be on a wider variety of topics than those here. You're very lucky.
I really am. I am rather thankful that I have such a well-educated circle of friends for I most of my time in intelligent conversation is done with individuals who either completed a PhD, abandoned it in order to pursue other goals, or are masters' students.
laminustacitus: I really am. I am rather thankful that I have such a well-educated circle of friends for I most of my time in intelligent conversation is done with individuals who either completed a PhD, abandoned it in order to pursue other goals, or are masters' students.
Lol jealous.
I sometimes cannot tell if you're trolling or not...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...