New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Classic Liberalism: Enlighten yourself.

Jen

Senator
Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally opposes government interference with economic freedom.
LINK

Classic Liberalism of the past (as defined here) is more often called "Libertarian" now.

While I don't agree with all of those who have historically espoused classic liberalism, I do agree with this statement. I have always agreed with this statement. My position on this statement is a core belief of mine that has not changed. I first called myself a "classic liberal" over 10 years ago. People have called me different things through the years and I don't argue with them. Why should I? Their opinions have nothing to do with who I am so why bother with them?

Another statement of definition LINK:

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights. People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.
Tolerance is another hallmark of classic liberalism. Both the Modern Liberals and the Conservatives (neo, ultra, religious as well as even some who claim to be "moderate") have forgotten what it means to be tolerant.

Honesty is something we should all strive toward. Modern Liberals and Neo/Ultra/Religious/Moderate Conservatives have come to believe that a lie is only wrong when the other side does it. Both sides are so self-righteous that their unctuous exteriors would melt into a miasma in a mild heat wave.

What is wrong with us?

We are flushing ourselves down the toilet and so busy pushing each other into the swirl that we don't realize we're swirling too.

WTH????
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
I wouldn't get so hung up on labels, if I were you.

Basic concepts of fairness, right vs. wrong and truth vs. deception are much more important, in my humble opinion.
 

Jen

Senator
I am not at all hung up on labels and that was the point of writing this.
Putting a label on someone is stupid and ridiculous.
Sorry you missed the point.
 

degsme

Council Member
Right... that's why Franklin wrote:

How many Delays and what great Expences were occasioned in carrying on the public Business; and what a Train of Mischiefs, even to the preventing of the Defence of the Province during several Years, when distressed by an Indian war, by the iniquitous Demand that the Proprietary Property should be exempt from Taxation!
And then went on to write.
Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment of a just Debt
how exactly does this comport with "libertarianism"?

OR even further in a different piece of writing

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

That's hardly what libertarians these days are claiming.
 

Jen

Senator
Was Benjamin Franklin mentioned in my post?
No. He was not.
On any opinion piece even with support, one can find something that will contradict it if that person is so inclined.
Looks like you worked hard on that.
Good job.
 
Top