How would you describe the philosophy of classical liberalism?

So as the title of the thread asks, how would you describe the philosophy of classical liberalism?

If modern liberals could explain how modern liberalism is an updated version of classical liberalism like they believe I would be grateful.

Henrin said:

If modern liberals could explain how modern liberalism is an updated version of classical liberalism like they believe I would be grateful.

Click to expand...

That will prove a tough call seeing "liberal" in today's America means pretty much the opposite.

Henrin said:

So as the title of the thread asks, how would you describe the philosophy of classical liberalism?

Click to expand...

The best show in town?

joG said:

That will prove a tough call seeing "liberal" in today's America means pretty much the opposite.

Click to expand...

Well, there is a few different attempts at similarities I expect to be made. Don't worry you'll find out what I think of them when the time arrives.

With difficulty.

It hardly matters, the fact is that laissez faire doesn't work, never has done, never will.

William Rea said:

It hardly matters, the fact is that laissez faire doesn't work, never has done, never will.

Click to expand...

So it has something to do with laissez-faire economics? We might be onto something here. :mrgreen:

Henrin said:

So it has something to do with laissez-faire economics? We might be onto something here. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it any less a pig.

William Rea said:

Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it any less a pig.

Click to expand...

This thread is about only two things:

1. What is classical liberalism?
2. Can modern liberalism claim to be an updated version of classical liberalism?

Meaning, once we figure out what classical liberalism is are the beliefs of modern liberalism an extension of the beliefs of classical liberalism.

I will hold out on my judgement, but I'm sure you can guess where this thread is going by now.

Henrin said:

So as the title of the thread asks, how would you describe the philosophy of classical liberalism?

Click to expand...

First off, philosophy is nothing more than the study of the fundamentals and the basic nature of thought and expression. It would then be grossly argumentative to suggest that classical liberalism, in philosophical terms, includes political absolutes. Just expressions of lean.

That said the philosophy of classical liberalism is all about limited external control. In this case the idea of limited government as a social control mechanism because the lean is to ensure best case for individual freedoms over government intentions. Think collectivism vs. individualism, and where responsibility falls. Said another way, the difference between all members being responsible for all other members within their society vs. the individual being responsible for the freedoms each has in a society. So, freedoms then are in just about all regards; like freedom of speech, expression, association, assembly, religion, press, to contract with another, and of course a lean to market economies (opposed to planned economies.)

It could be argued well that in the most extreme sense of the philosophical notion classical liberalism is societal and economic Darwinism, but that suffers from the absolutes problem. In practical more expressive terms we are really talking about modern Libertarianism as an evolution point from classical liberalism. Government still exists, certain protections still exist, and principled rule of law still exists. But in a minimal form as to ensure that the individual is as responsible for themselves as practically possible in both social and economic terms. Think smaller constitutional republics as the government form of classical liberalism philosophies. Or, this nation at start.

Modern social liberalism and modern conservatism reject just about all of that thinking.

Classical liberalism is more in line with modern libertarianism. But ultimately, who cares? Do you propose to attack a political philosophy based on etymology? What's the point? Most liberals already gave up that argument and now, more accurately, consider themselves progressives anyway.

CrabCake said:

Classical liberalism is more in line with modern libertarianism. But ultimately, who cares? Do you propose to attack a political philosophy based on etymology? What's the point? Most liberals already gave up that argument and now, more accurately, consider themselves progressives anyway.

Click to expand...

Because truth matters. The claim that modern liberalism is an updated version of classical liberalism is false.

Henrin said:

Because truth matters. The claim that modern liberalism is an updated version of classical liberalism is false.

Click to expand...

Is anyone really making that claim?

Modern liberals typically call themselves progressives these days.