Are you as tired of the quotation marks "classical" as I am?



Let's face it. We are LIBERAL. We believe in INDIVIDUAL freedom and liberty, free markets, choice, and personal responsibility.



The only reason we have to put quotation marks around the word classical is because of the absolutely screwed up labels we use today to describe our political ideologies. Those that call themselves "liberal" today aren't liberal. They seem to long for some distorted Orwellian Big Brother knows best authoritarian who will make it all right. The problem is that many who call themselves "conservative" seem to want the same thing. They just don't agree on the rules BIG BROTHER is to enforce.



The power shifts between these two Orwellian camps...and we are all screwed in the end.



So what is the solution?

good luck

The solution?

Take freedom for yourself and teach others to do the same.  Quit looking for leaders to give it to you.  The founding father believed in the individual and that we all needed to be individuals and responsible for ourselves.  Live a good life and be an example of someone who has taken responsibility for their own welfare and security.

It is all we can do because looking to others to lead the way just makes us sheep again.

hey...thanks

Socialism/elitism  is better than lettin the Country Class run things

Chose Classical Liberal because there was no Republican listed.....I mean "one who believes in a Republic-form of government".

I consider myself a Right-Wing Liberal.


















 

 

I like calling myself a liberal. Its fun to watch people not know how to react.

I like calling myself a Nationalist Conservative Republican & how posters here know how to react .

It's just a label.

Until you stick a dick in your mouth ...

In American politics Conservative is actually Classic Liberal. Reagan was a Conservative (classic Liberal) not a Liberal as in Progressive.

At least that is how the terms have been redefined here.

Progressives are the enemy.

You said it.

Democrats are Progressives .

Unfortunately, regardless of accuracy of true definitiions, the progressives co-opted the term liberal decades ago, and the sole term liberal is now a defacto label for social progressives.
There is no going back.

This is very true ...

The environment that created the typical Revolutionary era mindset is gone. That mindset was diluted with time, expansion of government, expansion of government intervention, and growth in population.

wow...no kidding...wow...



That sums it up. It is confusing as hell. That's why I catorgise everyone as "individualist" or "collectivist". Left-wing "collectivist" support the "PC" doctrine of the elite, and Right-wing "collectivist" support the protestant-fundamentalist-Christian doctrine of the elite....both want to suppress the individual.



The remainder of us are individualist. I read this on another forum....



"Marriage is a religious thing. Personally my beliefs are only a man and woman can be married. But if you don't, find a church that believes as you do and get married. Government isn't going to change my mind. I am going to teach my children that marriage can only be between a man and woman, you teach yours what ever you want and lets make sure we don't step on each others rights. Shoot up, get drunk, high, stoned, or whatever. But if your intoxicated ass fucks with my life know you are screwed. If your choices cause you to lose your house, family, job or freedom remember it is your choice. It doesn't matter if PC calls it a disease the "cause and effect" are the same. If the cops don't get you and you fuck with me I will kill you. I think human life is important. But if you want to kill your unborn child because HE or SHE isn't convenient for you right now and you screwed up didn't use birth control while you were ovulating don't expect me to make you feel better about your choice. It doesn't matter whether you use a punch to the stomach, clothes hanger, or hire another human (MD) to suck the life out of your belly its about choice and I guess we'll both find out if it matters. I believe in God, but I'm not interested in debating you or convincing you (see above). Let's just keep government out of it..."



That is a "right-wing" liberal....?

Classical, you mean, like music?

It's so disgustingly smug how they refer to themselves as "progressive" I refuse to call them that. Libtard ftw.

Not many want to face it, I certainly don't. But more and more the solution seems to be:










 
 

Progressive is givin them cover for their Socialist Far Left bent ...

There's a whole lot of WTF in there.

The individual is what matters, stand or fall on your own. does not  reconcile itself with Strong government control, more restrictions for a right wing conservative.
The type of government that favors individuality is limited government with minimal interference to the individual in attaining those goals (life, liberty, happiness).  Large government is about restriction to limit the individual in their choices (choices as in national healthcare, cap and trade, gun control).

The group is what matters, stand or fall together. has a problem with Maximize freedoms, remove restrictions. for 'individuals' who do not share their special identity group philosophy i.e. the left wing, current day liberal. Group identity wants to force a choice at the expense of the out-group.(see purple highlighted examples above) The whole reason for a group identity is to seek political favor as a 'group', not as an individual. Group identity hates individualism. Group identity wants to bend individuality to its will. Identity politics claims victimhood and uses stereotypes to silence individuals who challenge the group orthodoxy.

Whole lot of WTF going on there.

The solution: Repeal the 17th amendment. Power will start to go back to the states, and people will have more choice in the type of society they want to live in due to the diversity of the states. Free people will move to free states, and people who want less freedom will move to less free states.

They are "the man" that the baby boomers fought so hard to defeat and then became themselves.

That's actually not quite how it went down.  The fact that in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent in the broader Anglosphere) the word "liberal" is used to describe the very opposite of the term is the fault of classical liberals themselves.  Most during the course of the Progressive Era adopted progressivism.  There had always been a progressive aspect to classic liberal thought (just look at J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" for an example); heck, Georgism seems progressive or "liberal" in the modern sense and yet it was a more distant variation of classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism was and is flawed.  This is why it devolved into modern liberalism, which is a blending of the progressives and democratic socialists with the classical liberals (with the mix more heavily in favor of the progressives/socialists).  They refused to give up the name and they converted in art because their flawed ideas led them there somewhat and in part because they were afraid of being left behind politically, of becoming regressive rather than progressive (remember, they did have progressive ideas), and losing all of their influence.  Quite selfish really.  All that's left of them in modern liberalism is the opposition to the death penalty, favoring things like women's liberation and such, and favouring "freedom below the belt."  

The classical liberals shared in their relativism and agnosticism with the progressives and this was ultimately the fatal flaw in their beliefs.  They believed liberty was good because it happened to have utility, not because it was inherently good.  They rejected the idea of such things, transcendental truths, etc.  They also opposed ideas of natural law and such to include natural rights.  Liberty was only good because the economy and society ran better based off of a liberal model according to their perspective.  If one could prove that the economy and society would run better off of a tyrannical model their logic would force them to accept it and oppose liberty or to reveal themselves as inconsistent and not worth listening to.  Early liberalismm and preliberalism (our Founders were mostly of these types) instead based its love for liberty off of Christian considerations including natural law, a concept that became one of substance due to the writings of the Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas.  Of course, there were some exceptions to this, but ultimately there was a metaphysical justification for liberty.  Even if it proved to not be as efficient, liberty would still have to be preferred to a more effecient government that eschewed liberty.  The Christian concept of the dignity and worth of the individual demanded it, as did the necessity of man's freedom to choose to be either good or evil, with the consequences beyond this world (and in it as well) that that entailed.  

Most liberals after the collapse of late-19th century liberalism realized the errors of classical liberalism and reverted to the fundamentals of early liberalism, although they are not identical; this type of liberalism has come to be known as neoliberalism.  Some of course remained classical liberals and some do to this day.  Most would probably fall into the libertarian camp here in the U.S.  Neoliberals would encompass most of the broader conservative movement, to include many who call themselves libertarians.

I actually cringe somewhat when people call themselves classical liberals.  It seems many do not know exactly what that means and sometimes when they lay out their beliefs it becomes obvious that they are not classical liberals but neoliberals or something similar.  How many of you who label yourselves in this way are utilitarians?  How many of you reject the idea of inherent rights?  How many of you believe in some degree of progressivism and eschew many or all conservative tendencies?  The answer is probably less than the total amount of call themselves classical liberals here and on other forums, possibly considerably less.

Personally, I adopt the political label of the late Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (who was a neoliberal and conservative nobleman from Austria and a friend of von Hayek's): Extreme Conservative Arch-Liberal.  I am not progressive in my mindset, rather I am quite conservative, but I also believe very strongly in freedom and in any form of government best able to achieve this end, even if it means having non-democratic government (which basically means in almost all cases, since democracy is usually hostile to liberty due to its very nature, although some classical liberals might disagree; that's for another topic, though).  I amy be a liberal in the true sense of the word, but I am not a classical liberal.

I highly doubt Reagan was a classical liberal.  Using liberal in its proper sense he was probably more of a moderate liberal in the neoliberal tradition.

Well, nationalism is a leftist tendency...but perhaps you mean patriotic, which is something altogether different.

I don't see why so many are opposed to elitism and lump it so readily in the same category as socialism.  Most here don't seem to realize most of the Founders were elitists.  They believed governance needed to largely be left to the aristocracy (and some of the Founders would have put nobility and royalty in there as well, like Hamilton or Adams).  Elite had a positive connotation to them.  Nowadays it seems to be applied simply to people in power or high positions, which is not really the proper use of the term in a political sense.

Most "conservatives" as you label them are simply leftists who use the term conservative to gain votes and support from the Right and to gain power within the GOP, being unable to gain it in the Democratic Party.  We also know them as neoconservatives.  Fundamentally their ideology is the same as the modern "liberal."  Perhaps that is why they have such similar tendencies.  Actual conservatives of any sort fear and oppose Big Brother, not support him.

Swear to God, half your posts indicated you think the vast majority of arfcommers are liberal democrats.



 

Exactly. The "Liberals" have taken a page from Big Brother's playbook and are past masters of using doublespeak.

"War is Peace."
"Poverty is Prosperity."
The Ministry of Peace deals with war; the Ministry of Plenty deals with famine.

I'm really best described as socially liberal, economically conservative.



Fuck/Worship/Smoke/Inject/Believe/Shoot what you want, and leave the market alone. That's pretty much it. Shit, say "fuck" on TV, for all I care (while graphically boning the producer in the ass - have at it). Just leave my money (and the means of earning it) alone.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to protect my fellow countrymen's right to do the same, even while they annoy the piss out of us at times.

Only in the anglosphere does liberal = socialist. I'm a liberal because I want a small government.

It's because in the Anglosphere, the U.S. especially, most of the classical liberals became leftists and kept their name while also becomingthe forefront of leftism in many cases.  The history of leftism is also different in the Anglosphere and on the Continent.  Although I do recall seeing a couple of Continental liberal parties that seemed to be much more leftist than truly liberal in nature.

Some parties still call themselves liberal even though they turned left a long time ago. They've been trying to claim the word like the leftists in the US but they haven't succeded yet.

United States Citizen  
get out of my life - don't tell me what to eat, drink, think, grow, own, drive... etc. I can certainly decide that for myself.



don't have me pay taxes to support others that won't support themselves, or pay the salaries of government employees who elected to perform those jobs.

One thing I noticed here is that people get all confused, upset, etc. when you tell them there is such a thing as a liberal monarchist, something not all that uncommon in Europe.  And I got the impression that that is what happened to tis leftist "liberal" parties on the Continent.  I find European politics somewhat interesting ieven though I find it troubling that your politics are generally lacking liberty-mined mainstream people in most countries (from what I've seen).  One way you are fortunate I would imagine is coming from a country with a history and culture of an armed populace and citizen militias, something we have in common (it seems like European countries with such traditions are more likely to have more gun ownership).

Sweden is more socialist than liberal but in recent years we've made a right turn. Hopefully the, somewhat liberal, coalition that is currently in power will win the election on Sunday.

How liberal is the coalition?  Any parties in Sweden in favor of dismantling the Provider State?

No party is that liberal. The best we can hope for is somewhat lower taxes and more private healthcare and schools.

That's too bad.  What's your position on the matter?

I want the smallest government possible. I admire the US system of federalism where the power of the national government is limited.

What is your position on monarchy?  I used to be opposed to it for the most part but now, while I don't think it would culturally fit the U.S. anymore (that ship sailed in the 1830s) and thus don't advocate it here, I tend to be rather supportive of it, especially where it already exists as an institution.  I actually think if structured properly in a constitutional framework (and provided the monarch has real powers and is not just a figurehead) it could possibly be better from a liberal perspective, especially in regards to longevity, than a republican government of the same basic form.  If you guys had federal government how would your country be divided?

I'm against monarchy on principle because I don't believe any government position should be hereditary. However, it's very unlikely that our monarchy will be abolished any time soon since most people support it and the royal family doesn't have any real power.

If we had a federal system we would probably transfer more power to the län.

He certainly wasn't as conservative as he could have been.

It used to be limited it's not anymore.

I guess I'm an antigressive.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/09/16/the_money_of_fools_part_iii/page/full/



Sowell has it right.  Pretty much every politically active liberal I know wants government getting into your private lives, health, and finances for your own good.  Every politically active conservative I know is not for any of these.   The politically active liberals I know want to use government to suppress their political and cultural foes.  I don't see any politically active conservatives I know doing that.



Slavery aside, I think it safe to say that when this country was founded, the states and the people in them shared the same basic values.  I'd hate to see, as some suggest, free states and non free states.  Every state should afford the same basic protections for citizens in our Bill of Rights.  Some did officially while others did not for whatever reason so we have to fight to incorporate those rights like the 2nd Amendment today.  Maybe some didn't because they thought it was a given.  I can't imagine it being okay that some states are structured as 20th/21st century marxist or religious dictatorships while others are Constitutional Republics.  The two don't mix.



I'm afraid the genie has been out of the bottle for some time.  Government today has become big business.  Big business for those that work in it and for those whose industries depend on the taxpayer dollar.  They work together to keep the need going in order to create more spending.  And government today has all the tools to control citizens in a way that past despots would have admired.

according to your description...you are a libertarian...not a liberal