History

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Merlin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:30:09 GMT

I’d say that classical liberalism was a semi-conscious effort by continental Europe to mimic whatever had evolved in England that made that country so special and free. Along the way, the movement started to add to its defense of English traditional institutions (as they were misinterpreted in Europe, that is) also some general principles and rationalizations.

I think that as time went by that English-mimicking part started to fade and those principles begun to become more and more important, until modern libertarianism, which is almost wholly (wholly, for strict believers in the NAP) based on principles emerged from it. I’m under the impression that Hayek was the true last classical liberal, while Mises was more of the first libertarian.

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

wormyguy — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:16:39 GMT

Libertarianism as a political philosophy is essentially a subset of classical liberalism, classical liberalism being defined as the idea that all people are endowed with certain natural rights, especially self-expression and the ownership and free exchange of property, while libertarianism is the idea (going a step further) that all people are endowed with a natural right to engage in any activity which does initiate force or harm against another. Some classical liberals are libertarians, while all libertarians (besides ones which reject the notion of natural rights) are classical liberals, just as all anarcho-capitalists are libertarians but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.

Classical liberalism failed because of the extension of the franchise which they themselves championed; rather than the right to vote making everyone a virtuous citizen and philosopher, it (rather predictably, in hindsight) merely led to people either voting for free stuff and/or for feel-good nationalist/tribalist policies. Ergo, classical liberalism failed.

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Autolykos — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:48:35 GMT

Right, so where were we?

vive la insurrection:
From now on Autolykos,

Just assume my "arbitrary words" always agree exactly with your aesthetics and politcs - I just state them in a way you don't understand.

Make me.

vive la insurrection:
Hopefully that way I can get you to not do your "unique" line of inquiry directed at me anymore, somehow I doubt it - but let's try that out.

Nope, I don't think so.

vive la insurrection:
Oh, and I'm not trying to intimidate you - quite the opposite, I'm running away.

Could've fooled me.

vive la insurrection:
Now maybe you could answer the OP's question and quit focusing on people whos "arbitrary words" you happen not to like..or not your call.

Again, make me.

vive la insurrection:
Either way main point - I was adressing the OP, and I was not expecting some type of.....Spanish Inquisition

Too bad. But you weren't addressing the OP in your reply to Phaedros - you were addressing him.

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Eugene — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:20:40 GMT

But were they against seggregation? Were they for law equality between men and women? Were they attributing natural rights to foreigners as well? Were they against prohibition or other morality laws that were do widespread in the 19th century?

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Marko — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 05:11:08 GMT

I guess they were libertarians in that they were very libertarian. But they came from a different tradition than we do, albeit there is a great amount of overlap even here owing to the extent we draw from them (single biggest influence).

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

RothbardsDisciple — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:49:06 GMT

Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have made the generalization "early 1900s." You're right, it was more like the 30s (or so). And it was only certain factions of the Right, as wiki mentions.

To paraphrase a quote, Rothbard said that Mises was very pleased to suddenly have disciples further to the Right than himself. xD

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Wheylous — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:44:28 GMT

Hm, I learned something new. I proposed those names because before now I thought that "Old Right" simply meant the older Republicans, and I knew TR and McKinley were not the type of people we endorse. Now that I actually read the wikipedia page, I learn that the Old Right was a coalition formed in the 30s. Huh, alright.

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

RothbardsDisciple — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:38:30 GMT

I was thinking more like H. L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, etc. Ron Paul would be considered basically in the perfect tradition of the Old Right, if you want a living example. I'm pretty sure McKinley and Roosevelt would not be considered Old Right. Roosevelt and McKinley certainly weren't isolationists, both being involved in various wars. (And wikipedia classifies Roosevelt as a progressive).

Keep in mind that I'm using "isolationist" in the sense Ron Paul uses "non-interventionist."

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Wheylous — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:28:10 GMT

Sort of like McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt?

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

RothbardsDisciple — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:25:58 GMT

Like the Republicans of the early 1900s, or of that general time period. Or as wikipedia says, "The Old Right was a conservative faction in the United States that opposed both New Deal domestic programs and U.S. entry into World War II. Many members of this faction were associated with the Republicans of the interwar years led by Robert Taft, but some were Democrats."

Basically the old-school isolationists and capitalists. In the sense of this old American tradition, Rothbard considered himself a "rightist."

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Wheylous — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:12:33 GMT

When you say Old Right, what do you mean?

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

RothbardsDisciple — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:44:49 GMT

Classical liberals were libertarians. Libertarianism is not restricted to the principled Rothbardian sense. Classical liberals were basically minarchists, which are one group of libertarians. So, yes, they were, just like people of the Old Right were libertarians (even though they were mostly minarchists too).

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

vive la insurrection — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:37:31 GMT

From now on Autolykos,

Just assume my "arbitrary words" always agree exactly with your aesthetics and politcs - I just state them in a way you don't understand.

Hopefully that way I can get you to not do your "unique" line of inquiry directed at me anymore, somehow I doubt it - but let's try that out.

Oh, and I'm not trying to intimidate you - quite the opposite, I'm running away.

Now maybe you could answer the OP's question and quit focusing on people whos "arbitrary words" you happen not to like..or not your call.

Either way main point - I was adressing the OP, and I was not expecting some type of.....Spanish Inquisition

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Autolykos — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:23:04 GMT

vive la insurrection:
Slow down - I was doing a qucik set of assertions and pointing and signaling to something.

Really now? Just what was it that you were pointing and signalling to? Or do you expect us all to be mind-readers?

I, for one, think that Phaedro's objections seem well-thought-out.

vive la insurrection:
I wasn't being foolish enough to looking for a gigantic " who gives a rats ass all encompassing" metaphysical debate with weighty and slippery words - I was just trying to help paint a picture, and set a historical tone and perspective, that is easy to help one to conceptualize and manipulate the world around them, and if anyone can do so with the words given - I am fine with that. I was not doing philiosophy, sociology, or science, etc.

You asserted that anyone appealing to principles or ideals should be laughed at. How is that not "doing philosophy"? At the same time, your assertion itself seems to be an appeal to a principle.

vive la insurrection:
I was trying to show that liberterianism can be seen within the scope of liberalism. We come from Weber, Menger, and Mises - even if you disagree with what I say, the geneology and there thoughts of things remain.

You could've fooled me. Seriously.

vive la insurrection:
I don't know how you could expect to accomplish anything based off of what I said and why you countered that in relation to the topic of the thread. He is the one who contrasted the words "utilitarian" vs "principled", not me. I have no axe to grind or agenda to push here, I think you do - so I'lll bow out.

Are you sure you don't mean you'll backpedal away?

Re: Were classical liberals libertarians?

Autolykos — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:19:25 GMT

vive la insurrection:
3) One could make a very good case that libertarianism, particualry austrian striped - is just taking the classical liberal view one step further - furthermore it takes subjectivism/ perspecivism more serious than the English do - as they are ideas more clearly taken seriously in Germany. For whatever reason, the English where completely oblivious to and missed the boat on that one, and we are now suffering the consequences of their sub-par approach to the social sciences.

Having recently read over Joseph Salerno's biography of Carl Menger, I think you're onto something here.