Classical Liberalism Explained: What It Is, What It Means

What is classical liberalism? It's a set of ideas that places the freedom of the individual as its central feature. Classical liberals disagree about many things, but they agree on ten 10 core principles. Learn more: bit.ly/1hb8EZG
Dr. Nigel Ashford explains the 10 core principles of the classical liberal & libertarian view of society and the proper role of government:
1) Liberty as the primary political value
2) Individualism
3) Skepticism about power
4) Rule of Law
5) Civil Society
6) Spontaneous Order
7) Free Markets
8) Toleration
9) Peace
10) Limited Government
SUBSCRIBE:
bit.ly/1HVAtKP
FOLLOW US:
- Website: www.learnliberty.org/
- Facebook: / learnliberty
- Twitter: / learnliberty
- Google +: bit.ly/1hi66Zz
LEARN MORE:
Student opportunities: lrnlbty.co/A7y5Dt
Dr. Ashford is Senior Program Officer at the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) at George Mason University.
LEARN LIBERTY
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at bit.ly/1UleLbP

[@McGrath435]

It's so simple. So perfect. It was figured out hundreds of years ago. But we can't seem to figure it out today.

[@RiotHouseLP]

Evan McGrath probably because the term Liberalism was hijacked a long time ago. Now people rally around Liberalism without actual Liberalism. More like Liberalism = Socialism/Progressivism/Fascism/Communism etc, or a mix mash of the above.

[@IggyTthunders]

Because you can't make a nanny state with it.

[@Kevo216666]

Yes. It has no agenda, no utopian vision. It's a gift that few want to accept because their only concern is 'how can I directly benefit from the system?'.

[@davedavis4705]

Wrong. Its definately an ideology.

[@SparksX18]

So what? Ideology is not inherently bad.

[@DarkLordBrannon]

Basically, Classical Liberalism includes the best aspects of Conservatism and Modern Liberalism while rejecting the weaknesses of both. It's also more nuanced, which is the main reason it's not more widely adopted in today's polarized political climate.

[@harrisonsnellgrove8843]

Robert White the problem with the current political climate is that it's unrealistically binary. The world is very seldom black and white, and humans tend to live somewhere in the ether between left and right. Your average American is not a picketing regressive leftist, nor are they a religiously fervent conservative. People tend to fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, and in that truth we have the majority of the populations values left unrepresented in government. This is as Anti-American as anything I can think of, and it really boggles the mind to think of this being able to continue for so long. Partisanship is a plague that leads to divisive identity politics and regressive hate for the opposition, rather than protecting and encouraging critical thinking and challenging the government we are left with two opposite sides of the same coin.

[@mrhartley85]

Harrison Snellgrove well said

[@bernlin2000]

Nailed it: if this ideology was more known and practiced in the US, it would be much harder for the two parties to constantly divide the country into tribes. "Live and let live" makes for a weak slogan when you're trying to beat your opponent.

[@ticiomevio8691]

It does not reject the weakness of the social liberal! USA & Canada's liberals are just social-liberals. While the right wingers in said countries are usually economically liberal. So the same you say liberalism rejects both weaknesses, it could just be the exact contrary

[@saltyscotch7896]

Very, well said

[@roberth.goddardthefatherof6376]

Classic Liberalism, the sanest,most productive and most successful political path.

[@killyourtelevision3742]

Sounds like America was founded on classical liberal ideology. How the hell did the term liberal become so twisted to mean the opposite of what it used to stand for? Modern liberals are not skeptical of power, they like bigger government and more regulations. They are not pro liberty, again they want more government, and they also seem to be more about collective socialism with welfare and social programs as opposed to being about individualsim as classical liberalism are for individualism. What happened?? Now it seems being a conservative in America is being a classical liberal

[@4TIMESAYEAR]

@Alen No

[@4TIMESAYEAR]

@Daniel Araújo They still do. They were all at Robert Byrd's funeral. They all praised him. He was the KKK Clan leader - and he was a Democrat.

[@CptGravel]

@Daniel Araújo Sure, but the Democrats didn't use to be the progressive party. That title used to belong to the Republicans. But times have changed.

[@CptGravel]

@@4TIMESAYEAR Nope, he wasn't "the clan leader". And he had already left it. Although he did say some racist things after he left, I can't assume that the Democrats knew about those statements.

[@alexpindell4307]

We need the classical liberals back

[@jameshazelwood9433]

Alex Pindell they never went away in Britain they just took over all the other parties when their own party collapsed in the 20s

[@garroshharosh2385]

Make America classic liberal again

[@riiceey1473]

@@garroshharosh2385 Facts

[@leekenyon8705]

Who wants to be a liberal except brown people and Jews.

[@theliberalnationale5737]

@@leekenyon8705 rich white people

[@ath3lwulf533]

Guess I am a classical liberal.

[@albertabramson3157]

Classical liberalism (or libertarianism) is simply the freedom to do as one chooses so long as one doesn't harm anyone else. It is not the freedom to harm others. There have been lots of countries that operated freely under the Common Law, and still are. Under the Common Law, companies, executives, and individuals face civil and criminal liability if their actions cause the needless deaths of others. Under corporate law and corporate regulation, they get to put their own people in as federal regulators, writing the rules to their own benefit, while taking away your right to have your day in court. So there is no longer any way for people harmed by these chemical companies to enjoin their actions in court.

[@albertabramson3157]

And therefore, hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly to cancer and other medical problems, and you have no recourse in court because of these regulations.

[@udith]

I am social liberal

[@Bjkbruh]

@@udithmaybe. you are more likely just socialist/communist as most social liberals require that others think like them and will use government or corporate force to require they conform. I hope I am wrong that you would push for policies like this but that has been my experience. Being tolerant of ALL IDEAS, perhaps most especially those you may disagree with is the most liberal position a person can take.

[@Bjkbruh]

@@albertabramson3157 illiberal markets squander innovation. Free markets are actually liberal markets. We have crony capitalist markets that are also illiberal so I agree that where we are is not good enough.

[@ILIKEARMYS]

I am a classical liberal too, but i sadly say modern liberalism bringing shame to liberalism

[@jordanthomas4379]

That's because the modern day progressive liberal, is only LIBERAL with OTHER people's money.

[@gabbar51ngh]

Lmao some are straight up socialists identifying as liberals.

[@wordsnexttoeachother]

@@gabbar51ngh yep true

[@kathrynratenski-harrison4635]

If the Leftist Liberalism are the Modern definition, it is shameful & disgusting.

[@dubber1416]

More just people not knowing the difference between neo liberalism and every other type of liberal

[@myeyeshurt1877]

It is so clear, so logical, and so straightforward that the question is:- How could you not be a classical liberal?

[@tranium67]

How is it logical to care about a single person more than a group of people?💀

[@smokedoutpositivesquad9463]

@@tranium67 why shouldn’t I value myself over people i don’t even know?

[@user-dk9uo4tj1x]

@@tranium67 I think the purpose of the idea is to say that every person has their own individual interests and pursuits distinct from that of a collective. When you group people together, you inadvertently perceive them with the notion that their interests are the same. Caring more for the individual simply means that instead of perceiving people in collectives, you still care for every person but instead remove their categorization and see them with their own individual pursuits and ideas. Its based on the idea that no one is the same in the world and each person has their own aspirations and motivations in life, which the ideology wants to cater for.

[@theLanceInPants]

@@smokedoutpositivesquad9463 because we don't want the idiot bitten by the zombie into the compound because you THINK you're good.

[@immalkah]

@@theLanceInPants That is not even what classical liberalism refers to when it proposes individualism, but let's assume for a second that that's even remotely true, you are rejecting an entire political system based on fiction/hypothetical?

[@rolandmack13]

I wish liberals were still like this.

[@lirisa1869]

The American abuse of the terms liberal and conservative may cause confusion but libertarians are liberals.

[@somniumisdreaming]

***** Yes agree, some people are starting to confuse liberal with progressive ideas. Not as strong a view over pond yet but it's creeping over.

[@Centuriox94]

European liberals are American libertarians and European social-democrats are American "liberals"

[@hunterpowers317]

We are. SJW's are leftists but they are not liberals.

[@hunterpowers317]

dude im a liberal because i agree with the ideas in this video. i mean you can say that doesnt count if you want or that i am lying if you want, but im telling you that i agree with these principles and i basically always have, and thats why ive identified as a liberal. if you just want to be an enemy and see people who disagree with you as enemies then thats your right but it doesnt mean you ARE right

[@CybermanKing]

Classical liberalism > social liberalism.

[@ticiomevio8691]

What about the UK liberal party? Are you from USA or Canada, RedMrex? From what I've seen liberalism has been corrupted in said countries, but remain much more like the classic liberalism in Europe and South America.

[@kylemccormack1785]

The Libertarian Party stands on a classical liberal platform.

[@NERO_MYBAND]

More like Classical Liberalism >>> Progressivism

[@proudkuffar9890]

@PolSmokesPot { ولد الوجيهي } Those two are better than Islam or Sharia.

[@udith]

I am social liberal and I accept it! But we are better than the idiotic conservatists

[@Liamfulful]

Classical liberlism - the common sense of politics and freedom! It amazes me that everyone is not a classic liberal - it ticks all the boxes for beautiful living!

[@leekenyon8705]

Who wants to be a liberal except brown people and Jews.

[@fatpotatoe6039]

@@leekenyon8705 Who wants to be a troll?

[@leekenyon8705]

@@fatpotatoe6039 Most people.

[@fatpotatoe6039]

@@leekenyon8705 Who wants to be most people?

[@leekenyon8705]

@@fatpotatoe6039 Your mother.

[@RiotHouseLP]

Classical Liberalism sounds a lot more like Conservatives and Libertarians today. Modern Liberals sound opposite to that. Which begs the question, when did the word Liberalism become a hijacked term?

[@macaronimick]

+Jagjit Dusanjh So where do the Lib Dems fit in? They're still around so what do they stand for? It certainly isn't classical liberalism. Mind, the conservatives, labour and lib gems could well be one party and you wouldn't know the differences anyway. A few issues they differ on but they are all very much of the establishment class.

[@alfonso6558]

+RiotHouse I think that the only country where they say "liberals" when they really mean "socialists" or "leftists" is the USA. In Europe (or at least in Spain, which is where I live), liberals stand in favour of all those issues. In the USA, it would be more of a libertarian. I think the word "liberal" started to be used wrongly with Franklin Roosevelt and with the New Deal, when they started to apply keynesian policies under the name of "liberalism".

[@Ken19700]

I'm talking about the United States.

[@Fudelagem]

Os liberais americanos parecem mais comunistas do que qualquer outro, eles apenas roubaram o termo "liberal".

[@KacieMarie]

FDR hijacked the term.

[@daamazinfatb0y752]

Classical Liberalism is just common sense. Its perfect!

[@leekenyon8705]

Liberal is a offensive word and is like calling someone a scum bag

[@anon-yw4wd]

What If Classic Liberalism Is The Problem? kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqLLqpWIpbmfoqs

[@zekea7215]

Embedded liberalism is common sense, the results speak for themselves. Classical liberalism says that ownership should all flow to the top, as we are held hostage by the affluent. It is not the greatest good for the greatest number. A deregulated decentralized environment with unions and progressive taxes, and certain collective efforts like infrastructure and a general state of democracy to maintain order and tweak the more harmful aspects of the market is ideal.

[@tranium67]

Oh yeh? Why would anyone put a single person over an amount of people thats literally the stupidest thing ever how is that common sense?💀 honestly u liberals arent the brightest up here🧠

[@archiemac5137]

It's common sense now but 300 years ago it was extremely radical.

[@miguelangelperezverdin6970]

the more you know, today I discovered that I am a classic liberal.

[@leekenyon8705]

Who wants to be a liberal except brown people and Jews.

[@miguelangelperezverdin6970]

@@leekenyon8705 what...

[@jfast8256]

@@leekenyon8705 I take it you didn't actually watch the video.

[@leekenyon8705]

@@jfast8256 Sounds like a conflict over labels.

[@jfast8256]

@@leekenyon8705 No one understand what you are on about mate. Were you chasing a squirrel while watching the video or while commenting?

[@craigpsimpson]

For some reason I find this video extremely relaxing.

[@benskelly1217]

I personally like classical Liberalism... idk why...

[@newrunrocks2656]

Ben Skelly we all good. XD

[@fastingaccelerator6854]

You are smart. Duh. In fact you’re a f***ing genius!

[@liveandletlive3474]

@@fastingaccelerator6854 What are you up to, schlomo?

[@jonahmordhaim2705]

Becouse classical liberalism is common sense.

[@prodigalson6166]

If you're American you might recall a quote from the Declaration of Independence that reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." that is known as natural law, and is the Cornerstone of Classical liberalism, natural law nomocracy. Which is the foundations of these United States known as #Declarationism. It is also quoting John Locke, the father of liberalism, almost verbatim. I deliberately just call myself a liberal duke it out with everybody to get it through their heads that what we call liberal today is not liberalism. Equating liberalism with socialism is like having judaic Nazism. It just doesn't work.

[@ImVicBlanco]

I feel so virtous and fullfilled saying I am a Classical Liberal.

[@leekenyon8705]

Liberal is a offensive word and is like calling someone a scum bag

[@leekenyon8705]

@@oneafteranother4588 To be a liberal is not to have morals nor virtue and to hate any freedom that is not to do with sexual perversions.

[@droppingnostopping3534]

I've been a classical liberal my entire adult life, but just now have accepted it.

[@bastiatintheandes4958]

Life, Liberty, Property and Peace (the right to be left alone)

[@LordDirus007]

Libertarianism is just a rebrand of Liberalism.

[@LearnLiberty]

+James Charbonneau This further in depth look at Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism--also with Prof. Nigel Ashford--may pique your interest: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5Sappagqd-Xfsk

[@ExtractEngineer]

+James Charbonneau You're not wrong, but it's a little more complicated than that.

[@theloniousMac]

+James Charbonneau No. OMG no. 1. Liberty is primary to libertarians/classical liberals What is called liberalism today is anathema to libertarianism and especially classical liberalism. Where libertarianism or classical liberalism champion freedom first, liberalism champions EQUALITY first, and will work to see equality ENFORCED, no matter what the cause, even if it diminishes the freedom of others. Modern liberals believe in using the government to enforce equality. 2. Individualism Liberals decry individualism. Liberals champion collectivism. The needs of the collective outweigh the needs and rights of the few, especially the one. (Yes, I am bastardizing Star Trek, but the example has always been very eloquent.) As a libertarian, I believe I am responsible for my life. My choices are my own. No one is responsible for my successes or failures except me. I am free to make my own decisions. Liberals are willing to sacrifice whatever I feel and believe to the collective. The foundation of socialism, communism, and fascism. 3. Skepticism About Power Liberals have no problem granting the government more power. The only power they dislike is the power of corporations. Libertarians disagree with too much power in government as well as corporations, though when it comes down to it, too much power in government is far more dangerous than too much power in corporations. Corporations exist to make money. Governments exist to control people, hence elevate the collective, diminish the individual, diminish most importantly freedom. Governments force people to do what they want with threat of force. If you do not pay your taxes, you will go to jail. Governments control people by turning their actions into crimes. That is the basis for government power. Governments can control criminals. When governments need more control, they just criminalize more activity. The government does not want the people to be able to defend themselves. The government creates more and more laws criminalizing ownership of weapons. The government does not think you as an individual should be able to have complete privacy from them. They pass laws to make it legal for them to keep you under surveillance. They seek to force Apple, inc., for instance, to create backdoors for them to get into iPhones. Governments say they do these things because it is in the interests of the people. I.e. the greater good. It is not. It is in the interests of the government. Liberals promote increased power for government in order to promote equality, no matter what the cost of that equality might be. 4. The Rule of Law Liberals believe that laws are made to be circumvented if they interfere with equality. Laws are meant to restrict freedom, not protect the individual. This is why so many liberals have so many issues with the Constitution. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to defend the individual from the government. Liberals would rather see the power of government increased over the Constitution in order to increase the power of the collective over the individual. The brilliance of the founders of America created 3 branches of government to help prevent this from happening. The Judicial Branch, i.e. the Supreme Court is constantly called upon to judge the constitutionality of abuse of law. See governments creating criminals above in #3. 5. Civil Society Clearly liberalism does not believe in the civil society. Classical Liberals/Libertarians believe that social problems can and should be dealt with by private organizations. Liberals believe the government should take on social problems. Unfortunately the government taking on these problems can lead to abuse of law, and abuse of power. I also believe that negating the Civil Society in favor of the liberal preferred government solution makes people think they don’t have to do anything. Government is handling it. Why should I care about the homeless people living in the streets beneath me? They don’t have names, they are not individuals, they are the set of all homeless people. Just another nameless, faceless collective. That’s the government’s problem. Not mine. When I become a part of the solution and I go down into the streets and I learn that this homeless person I’m speaking to is named Joyce, I am suddenly invested in helping to see Joyce become solvent. Unfortunately, government is woefully incompetent at most things it tries. Billions are spent. There are still homeless. The wealthy are blamed. 6. Spontaneous Order Once again, liberals trust government here. The government should be used to institute and maintain order based on promoting equality. Classical liberals believe in order arising spontaneously. A fantastic example of this is THE INTERNET. The Internet was never planned. It was never governed. It arrived as technology arrived. No one planned the World Wide Web. It just happened. Voluntary organizations created standards for the Internet. People voted on the standards. They were adopted. Protocols were established. The Internet flourished. The Internet is of course in danger today as governments all around the world seek more control. The UN of all places thinks that it should be in charge of the Internet. Well the Internet has done just fine. THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE OF MUCH OF WHAT THE INTERNET HAS BECOME IS FREEDOM. Not Equality. 7. Free Markets It goes without saying that liberals oppose the free market and prefer a centralized government control market. Libertarians/Classical Liberals prefer the free market. The market can police itself. Basically we have the war between Capitalism and Socialism here. Capitalism has demonstrably lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Socialist states always fail. They always fail spectacularly. One need only look at contemporary Venezuela as yet another example of the demonstrable failure of socialism. Some people point to the so called “Democratic Socialism” of the Scandinavian states. I respectfully submit, that it is the capitalists who create the wealth that the socialists of those states confiscate. Were there no capitalism in those “Democratic Socialist” states, they’d be utterly poor. The government should not be involved in the day to day interactions people. The Market should handle that. Instead we have the government attempting to control everything from what we eat to who we hire. We have seen recent glaring examples of what happens when government increases control of an economy ( Venezuela ) and when government decreases control of an economy ( China ). 8. Toleration Modern liberals are always talking about intolerance. The irony is they are among the most intolerant people. They are utterly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them, to the point of trying to legislate such people out of existence. The insanity of safe spaces and trigger words on University campuses is an example of this. Liberals are so intolerant they are completely unwilling to accept that people disagree with them. It simply is not possible that people disagree. They will force their opinions on the collective through government at every possible opportunity. Classical Liberals/Libertarians are champions, again, of freedom and as such free speech. People should be allowed to believe whatever they like, say whatever they like. If someone hates me because I am black, it is her right to say so. I believe that a society in which she is free to say so also protects my right to say the things I believe in. 9. Peace I believe that modern liberals agree with classical liberals here. It is better to be at peace than at war. Interfering in the affairs of other nations seems to ALWAYS backfire. Personally I’d like every American soldier of any kind brought home starting tomorrow. I believe we should continue to amass a strong defense, but that trying to enforce our viewpoints on the rest of the world simply does not work. I believe in the free movement of goods and ideas between nations, not necessarily people. People should be vetted. I believe the only mass exports from the United States to other nations should be food and medicine. 10. LIMITED GOVERNMENT Government is good at defense, and almost nothing else, IMHO. The liberal goal to use government for everything inevitably creates a dystopian society. The goal of the classical liberal/libertarian is to control government, not the other way around.

[@adambihn9683]

+theloniousMac YES! I was watching this scratching my head - you've got the right of it!

[@Extreme_Gardening145]

+James Charbonneau Basically, yeah.

[@johnc1014]

I would like to be more specific regarding the legitimate role of government. Often, classical Liberals and Libertarians say "limited government" and give some general guidelines but aren't very specific.I believe the only legitimate role of government is to protect the right of the people to their own persons and property. You are not allowed to murder, rape, steal, commit fraud, or otherwise infringe on another individual's right I their own person and property. The government enforces this through law enforcement, a judicial system, and a military. They should be able to collect a single flat consumption tax (like a universal sales tax) that is the same rate for everyone in order to pay for these few legitimate roles. Other than that, government has no business getting involved in our lives. Period.

[@aussie_anarchist]

Do you identify as a Minarchist by any chance?

[@jebremocampo9194]

You have actually written what I've been saying to my group. Word for word!

[@johnc1014]

@@aussie_anarchist Politically, yes, my views would be consistent with a minarchist or night-watchman libertarian.

[@thanosman3491]

@@johnc1014 same

[@greenguy109]

This video brought me to the point of tears by 0:55. It's so good to know there are other rational thinkers in the world. I love this channel.

[@dubber1416]

I dont think you are a rational thinker if you cry because someone is talking about politics

[@GustafStechmann]

@greenguy109 i had the same reaction.

[@GustafStechmann]

@@dubber1416 it is perfectly possible to have a rational and emotional reaction at the same time, it simply means that both parts of your brain are wired correctly.

[@JonM-ts7os]

Grow up.

[@sess9561]

Let me guess, vaxxed?

[@shawnluckyboy]

more gov = less prosperity.

[@JD-jl4yy]

Huh, strange how the happiest countries in the world all have large governments... Almost as if you are just spewing bullshit.

[@wills.e.e8014]

@@JD-jl4yy I agree with you, he's a leftist liberal so don't push the matter further, he might suddenly call you racist, bigot or something. Ignore the one trying to rile you and you'll win

[@JD-jl4yy]

@@wills.e.e8014 what?

[@wills.e.e8014]

@@JD-jl4yy to make it short: just ignore him

[@lol3367]

JD tell that to China.

[@2000willsome]

I like the joke he slipped in about the Supreme Court upholding the constitution.

[@francieoverman3484]

This just seems so common sense. It covers social and economic freedom, while keeping a society than can keep its head above water. Watching this makes me want to press the reset button on the American parties we have right now.

[@lockedon8953]

I respect this man very much. I'm independent and i can honestly say from an outside standing both parties have moved away from their principles and ethics. Instead they argue and disagree like children just to get votes

[@narcoriggi3042]

Thank you for uploading it helped alot

[@abbymonta650]

What a great and concise explanation of the topic! Very well laid out and explained and thoroughly helpful! Well done!

[@donsryche1]

Wow! I mean, I watched this and thought “what the he’ll happened?” Liberalism today is sooo far away from ‘classic liberalism. Did have something to do with the Great Depression maybe? I don’t know.

[@fatpotatoe6039]

I have a recommendation; look up Academic Agent Rise and Fall of Classical Liberalism

[@donsryche1]

Fat Potatoe Okay, I’ll check it out some time.

[@fatpotatoe6039]

@@donsryche1 Cheers to your curiosity

[@AliKhan-zt1gu]

I have recently embraced a liberal outlook now just getting to understand what it means to be a liberal. I enjoyed watching this video. Its a big eye opener

[@Redneck_Wizard]

Classical liberalism and modern liberalism is 100% opposite from each other.

[@lizEb9000]

Yes, I am a classical liberal!

[@GnomaPhobic]

I'm glad I found this video when I did. I've felt increasingly isolated the past few years in terms of political thought because I feel like both parties in my country are racing to their ideological extremes. The rancor, distrust, and outright hate they express to each other genuinely frightens me. Americans desperately need to calm down, take a deep breath, take a seat next to one another, and start remembering that this country was founded upon Classical Liberalism. The reason the left and the right so vehemently disagree about what this country and its values' actually are is because of how far away from the center they have become. The 10 principles listed here can be inclusive of everyone in this country without us having to enact endless litmus tests. We need to focus on what we have in common - the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - and not the things that divide us.

[@ethangroat8333]

Thank you for this! Perfect summary! More people need to see this!

[@LearnLiberty]

Please share it with them!

[@lovelyfrenzy1]

Fantastic job in explaining!!! Wonderful loved it thank you so much! Do you explain more political science terms my professor isn't that great at explain and I'm looking for an over all channel that will help me study for my exam.

[@alanramirez472]

It sounds like modern conservatism in the US. How left everything’s moved

[@theatheistbear3117]

Because they’re not practicing Classical Liberalism. It’s Neo Liberalism that they follow.

[@vampirelovewerewolf]

Thank you very much for uploading this video, truly helped me with my work : )

[@lalitha65]

So beautifully explained !

[@kirkmaynard1966]

Modern American Conservatism (officially Liberal-Conservatism) is simply a form of Classical Liberalism in which certain aspects (I.E. Peace, tolerance and Free Movement ideals) are sometimes hesitantly moved aside (in the case of peace, where we will preemptively strike in self-defense, or tolerance when the subject is harmful to our culture or even our safety), or slightly restricted (Free Movement ideals, as to prevent multinational corporations and illegal immigration from harming the nation). American Conservatism is Classical Liberalism done safely and protectively. Modern Liberalism is basically 19th Century Big-Government Conservatism (Monarchism) with a Socialist twist. I am a Conservative, but I am also a Classical Liberal.

[@Seveth713]

Sounds pretty great.

[@veryrudemonkey658]

Very helpful, thank you :)

[@JT-zm3pn]

4:25 #7 Free market - How would this work when hiring a contractor to build a house? I've worked in construction. These people will do whatever it takes to cut costs and therefore quality and safety regulations. It can take several years for fire hazards, infrastructure problems to arise and contractors will be long gone by then.

[@fatpotatoe6039]

This one comes up quite a bit from people with brains and it is a good one. The problem is liability, meaning it is within the classical liberal's principles of property rights to "regulate" the industry. You don't want to over-regulate the industry, but you don't want scammers who build shoddy houses to not be liable when it falls down or imposes a cost on the landlord, because their company has mysteriously disappeared. "Structural soundness" as an engineer, not a bureaucrat, would minimally define it should probably be a requirement for construction, otherwise the product was a scam/fraudulent of sorts, like selling a buyer what is labelled a drug to cure cancer but is just a bunch of chemicals that can kill you. With a deficient house, you are selling them shelter that doesn't actually work. If it were structurally deficient in some FORESEEN way to both buyer and seller, then there is no issue with the exchange. For example, they know the house will fall down in a year and so do the tenants. The good thing about classical liberalism is that it has underlying principles, like property rights and people as ends-in-themselves, and from that we can speak about issues in a clear way in reference to standards like liability or fraud. We don't have this stupid "pro-consumer" vs "pro-business" rhetoric of special interest jostling in which your opinion depends on your circumstance, and the costs to either side are forgotten.

[@ea2631]

I love you learn liberty guys, better than reason tv, reason sucks compared to you guys

[@Soldier957]

YES I AM!

[@lerkkweed]

Such a wonderful summation.

[@raystinsky]

Thank you for this succinct definition.

[@callyupnorth5524]

I have always been classical liberal but in the modern culture I feel closer to conservatives than ever as they share many of my core principles

[@jasonbourne9819]

Modern conservatives are basically classical liberals. They are trying to "conserve" the classical liberal values that the Marxists are trying to erode.

[@muzammilusmani1820]

Thank you. I always been a classical liberal and somewhat social conservative. These Dems are ruining the core ideology of Liberalism.

[@Anabsurdsuggestion]

Yet classical liberalism is much closer to libertarian socialism and anarchism. So much for you being a conservative?

[@joshjackson3321]

I agreed with everything except with the free movement of people bit

[@ExtractEngineer]

I don't understand why. If you believe in the right for a population to be well-armed, there is little to fear. Free movement of people and goods tends to result in peaceful cooperation.

[@CornerTalker]

Because people will tend to move en masse from areas with authoritarian governments to areas with freedom, and - alarmed at being swamped - the governments of the free areas begin restrictions. Some people believe that allowing people to flee authoritarian areas offers a "pressure relief valve" that allows the authoritarian government to continue to exist.

[@nicks40]

If we suppose that everywhere on Earth is governed according to classical liberal principles, then, we also suppose that eveywhere on Earth will be peaceful and prosperous and there would be no economic reason or political reason to move anywhere else. You might want to move to escape the weather in Britain or the architecture in Monaco, for example, but that's a different question and would, I guess, apply to not very many people.

[@bernlin2000]

Interesting theory, but what it have any different effect if those people stayed in the country and suffered in poverty and despair? They could come to America and do great work, and anything they were paid here would be a vast improvement over many third world countries. The only issue is making the incentives stay healthy: our welfare state allows people to potentially take advantage of our economy, to our nation's disadvantage. We have to find better ways to provide for disadvantaged Americans, without having a system that makes immigration a major hassle. We have plenty of room in this country for more people, that's not the problem: making sure that criminals and leeches don't overwhelm the system is the issue that needs to be addressed before open border could ever be implemented effectively.

[@idkmate6839]

So simple. Nice work!

[@GPatrick137]

waaaaw !!! this is the ideal world .. hope one day countries around the world adopt this kind of philosophy

[@prodigalson6166]

As a lifelong Real Liberal, even when I thought myself conservative, I have held these principles all of my life. Yes I know that was redundant. 😁 I really enjoyed this presentation. However, I would emphasize that Declarationism is at the heart of classical liberal philosophy. Often times Classical Liberalism gets confused with Libertarianism; Liberalism and Libertarianism have a distinct difference. Libertarianism is born out of the Jeffersonian School, whereas American Classical Liberalism is born out of the Franklinian school. Being of the liberal political family, are born out of the belief in Natural Law Nomocracy, as per John Locke. We hold democracy, majority rule, to be counter to Liberty; and nothing more then mob rule, which will always inevitably result in a totalitarian regime; as a result of struggling to be top-dog. The present state of these United States is a prime example of the destructive force that democracy is. The reason Liberals are known for being open minded, Fake Liberals ("Modern" sic) definitely are not, is because we emphasize the pursuit of wisdom through philosophy, and desire Philosophical Dialogue as opposed to the barbarity of debate. Granted we are human and fall into the debate trap ourselves, self discipline is key to Liberty, hand in hand with mutual respect. The only thing that Classical Liberalism has in common with Socialism, is that we both believe that Utopia can be achieved. But even with that we are in stark contrast. The Socialist approach to achieving Utopia is grounded in authoritarianism; whereas the goal of Classical liberalism is to create a 'Free Utopian Society' as a result of adhering to Natural Law Nomocracy: the same natural law nomocracy spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, hence, "Declarationism." Best of course is achieved through the spontaneity of an Organic Society, not to be confused with environmentalism, which is another subject; we have absolutely no problem with technology. This is why we perceive personal responsibility and benevolence,* by way of philosophy, is the backbone of Liberty herself. * Acceptance is preferred over mere tolerance. The true classical liberal frowns upon excess laws. Laws specifying specific groups are redundant to rule of natural law; and only result in creating a privileged class. For example: the law concerning same-sex marriage never had to be made, because it is already covered, as a valid Right, by the rule of self evident truth. In the same token, it is the right of a minister to not perform a same-sex wedding, or a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, based upon their right to conscience; which is a shared right with the same sex couple Desiring these services, based on their right of conscience. We are told that's the Declaration of Independence recognizes life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the fundamentals of Liberty. However, upon close examination, it becomes self-evident that the fundamentals of Liberty are; equality life liberty the pursuit of happiness and consent. Understanding that all five of these fundamental truths is Paramount in understanding the principles of this Republic. This is vitally important in recognizing that the Second Amendment isn't just about owning guns; that is the right to keep and bear arms runs very deep Beyond object. The reason that the right to keep and bear arms is so vitally important is because traditionally the right to keep and bear arms was reserved for the noble class. This sets our nation apart from all others, in that we are one and all of noble class, as opposed to Peasant subjects. This is why socialism and communism are counter to our way of life. The denial of the right to keep and bear arms is a return to subjugation. This leads us into the vital importance that The Stereotype of the noble savage influenced our ancestors, as per The Franklinian School, which eventually led us to adopt the Iroquois system of government, which is now our constitution. ( HR 331 100th Congress 2nd session 1988) Please read the article below, and keep this quote in mind as you do so. This reflects the franklinian school, a reflection of the free utopian society which is the goal of the true classical liberal. "I have gained this by philosophy; that I do without having to be commanded, what others do only from fear of the law." - Aristotle Benjamin Franklin: Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America www.wampumchronicles.com/benfranklin.html I think it's about time that we the people organize ourselves in tribunals under our power of jury and take control of our schools first and foremost. This is where we need to start. The repair of this nation will take several Generations. The only thing that should be standardized is Civics and Citizenship: promoting the principles upon which these United States were founded: including Declarationism being declared as the ONLY Legal interpretation of the Constitution. The Only way to save this Nation is to return to the center, our Heritage and make sure it is passed on to future generations. E pluribus unum All My Relations 🙏🦅🌲🇺🇸

[@haroonjappa2878]

i am muslim from pakistan but i love liberalism and secularism

[@OmarOsman98]

How do you reconcile classical liberalism and Islamic political theory? Islam offers laws that protect private private property, social restrictions and market regulation.

[@mr.dynamite2924]

@@OmarOsman98 But doesn't uphold free speech, individualism and tolerance.

[@OmarOsman98]

@@mr.dynamite2924 I disagree. I think Islamic political theory possess free speech and individualism albeit at a different extent to classical liberalism.

[@mr.dynamite2924]

@@OmarOsman98 Well Muslim society in various parts of the world take Blasphemy and criticism against Islam too seriously. In many Islamic countries there are Anti Blasphemy laws. You do remember Paris attacks right and also the recent attitude of Muslims round the world regarding French's Right to Blasphemy. So I am not in agreement with what you are trying to say.

[@HalkerVeil]

This helped me a lot. Thanks.

[@MrBoshra95]

Thank you for uploading this video, it was very useful.

[@DerikSchneider1974USA]

Classical Liberalism is real Liberalism and not Socialism or Libertarianism today. But the ability of people to live their own lives and have the freedom to live their own lives. And where Liberals differ from Libertarians is what role government has to do to see that everyone has the ability to live in freedom. Liberals see government as having a role to empower people to be able to live in freedom and take care of themselves. Libertarians do not have a role for government in seeing that people are able to get themselves this freedom.

[@MaitreyaNow]

"History has proved that free markets provide prosperity... " Prosperity to a handful who end up regulating the"free market" in their favour to the detriment of workers and the environment...

[@YannisPatras]

MaitreyaNow Far from it to be honest. This is exactly the reason Ayn Rand wrote 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.' Conservatives think they know what capitalism is and abuse it the way you very correctly state, while today's Liberals show allergic reactions to it only because they never see it in its intended form.

[@kathrynratenski-harrison4635]

I'm glad to hear this definition of classical Liberalism. In today's world of redefining WORDS LABELS, & THERE MEANING, it gets confusing. Is a Leftist a liberal? Is a WOKE a liberal? Is a Radical? Can U be a Conservative & a Liberal at the same time?? I'm a conservative in many things, but I don't judge others, don't feel anyone has to have my beliefs or lifestyle. I love God, family, church. Patriotism, life, freedom, free speech & pursuit of happiness. I think I might be a classical liberal/ conservative is that a new category?

[@mylifematters6237]

You're a conservative. Liberals don't believe in freedom. Liberals are communist tyrants. When I was young and stupid, not knowing any better, I considered myself a dyed in the wool liberal. Now that I'm older and wiser, my vision's getting clearer. I now see liberals for who they really are - tyrants. The scamdemic really brought out the tyrant in the goofy little liberal. The scamdemic been going on for about 18 months and one of the things that stands out is, conservatives are the ones promoting freedom while liberals are trying to bully non mask wearers into wearing a mask. It is the wimpy, goofy little liberal imposing the poisonous vaccine on people. Conservatives believe in the individuals right to choose whether or not they wanna look dumb and stupid in a mask. Conservatives believe in the individuals right to choose whether or not they wanna put poison in their body. classic examples of liberal tyranny are govonor Scumo and mayor De Crapio. De Crapio just mandated proof of vaccination in order to be part of society. Where is the freedom in that? What's liberal about that? Think about it like this: take this poison or else you starve to death. Thats cruel. What gives that bastard the right to force vaccinations? That has to be unconstitutional. I'm sure us New Yorkers can take that criminal to court. And Scumo is in agreement with De Crapio. Since the scamdemic, Scumo has had more lawsuits filed against him than any govonor in America because of his tyranny. That no good bum economically destroyed this once great city with the help of De Crapio. Those 2 bums are like maggots stuck on each other, neither one can get loose. Conservatives are saying "throw the stupid mask in the trash where it belongs and let's restart our economy at 100% capacity. While under sexual harassment investigation, Scumo is still holding sum businesses in New York hostage. A lotta stores are closing 5 -10 hours early and open 5 days a week instead of seven. Republican ran states have moved on, their economies are booming. The real liberal here appears to be the conservative. The tyrant appears to be the liberal. Wow, all this time I was walking round calling myself a liberal, Not anymore. Liberal - communist tyrant Conservative - live and let live

[@kathrynratenski-harrison4635]

@@mylifematters6237 thanks for making it clear that I am a conservative- not a liberal. Freedom for all, - except the ones who want free & the rest of us in tyrant ruled by themselves .

[@Eudaimonist]

Great summation.

[@rev.j.rogerallen9328]

I am a classical liberal which makes me a modern conservative.

[@Natsumi170]

Classical Liberalism is incompatible with Conservatism...

[@AKSmith15]

I'm surprised Secularism is not included. Seperation of Church and State.

[@jordanthomas4379]

It doesn't need to be. you can believe in god and still hold basically all these 10 values at once.

[@JD-jl4yy]

@@jordanthomas4379 seperation of the two is always a good thing

[@jordanthomas4379]

AK Smith you can be religious and support a separation of church and state. For example, the founding fathers were religious (to varying degrees), by your assumption they would have demanded their church be in control of the state, and yet they wrote the complete opposite in the constitution, and we are better off for it. And on the other hand you have Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦 aka “the asshole of the world” where church and state are one and the same.

[@oly7633]

Thanks for explaining so well. Yes i am a classical liberal

[@tommicheal118]

to your question at the end. i am trying to answer that now. Thanks

[@annslezewick6217]

This sounds like libertarianism to me! I hear Ron Paul in this.

[@westshot7338]

In modern political compasses, classical liberalism is closely tied to (if not considered a form of) libertarianism.

[@fade2black244]

Libertarianism is more extreme. Classical liberal is like a Libertarian lite.

[@jfast8256]

@@fade2black244 Exactly. I thought I was libertarian a few years back. Well after literally hundreds of "you're a statist!", I found out I didn't belong with them. Liberalism (aka classical liberalism) was a much better fit to sum up my general, if not specific, ideology. I still love my extremist brothers and sisters, but I'm pretty tired of being called a statist simply because I see the value in rule of law and why some things should be illegal, even if it doesn't always produce a victim. Having a high probability of producing a victim is usually good enough for me.

[@mrxman6615]

Does it support secularism? If so, it might just be a near-perfect ideology.

[@allergy5634]

Liberals invented the concept of secularism (at least in the Christian west).

[@smithred4382]

Thanks for the help.

[@bryndisjakobsdottir9661]

Thank you for this video!

[@MaitreyaNow]

Classical liberalism presuposes that consumers will make informed decisions to consume intelligently and the market will be directed by the "compass" that this acts as , however, advertising tries its best so that consumers make uninformed and reaccionary choices and products are not labelled sufficiently to allow an informed and intelligent consumer choice... If I knew that the shoes I am about to buy were made with child slave labour in Indonesia and that the company that makes them pollutes the environment and lobbies government to disregard these consequences, I would think twice... To be an informed consumer means spending hours sifting throught the internet just to by a pair of trainers... a luxury that most can't afford after they have worked 60 hours in a factory and still can't pay the gas bill and mortgage...

[@willerickson8803]

Whahh!!

[@TheTruthMattersTheLastSt-nu9xv]

So, you are a "social" liberal, who willfully outspoken on human rights ,but willingly close your eyes or shortsighted enough on figuring out the bigger corruption problems follow while the self righteous government intervene in regulating all the Corporation in Indonesia or the the world not to child labour. Figuring out whether a corporation's product is morally wrong or okay is your job, not u.s government's job. And don't you think Indonesian government's job to find out and prevent such Mal practice before an active individual consumer like you or NGO found out? If Indonesian regulators gives it an okay call, you know that 's not an legal issue anymore. In information age, It is never too late if you found out such things about a bad corporation until it is punished legally or blamed socially to ultimately hurt their revenue sale. Just be alerted and active to find out one case like it before you proudly assume all corporations are evil.

[@MaitreyaNow]

Where to start...? In a real democracy the "state" would be equivalent to "you and me". WE would decide what is ethical and we would hopefully not allow products into the country that did not meet the same standards that we demand in our own country. WE would not allow our corporations to exploit foreign labour or pollute the environment as we, hopefully, would not allow them to do in our own countries. Corporations could still make money whilst paying a decent wage to foreign workers in foreign countries. Same goes for our own countries where millions of working people have no expendible income (which in turn is bad for the economy) or can't afford to go to a doctor when they are ill... You seem to assume that democracy is a utopia? I think that corporations and businesses work within the laws (pushing the limits of their interpretations) in order to be competetive - ethical companies will have less income and so cannot advertise themselves in the same way morally corrupt companies can.

[@bernlin2000]

And yet we all become more aware of the effects of advertising as we get older...this is also likely why people tend to grow more conservative as they age. We realize we're easily manipulated and begin to fight back, through our spending choices. Advertising does little to me nowadays but you're right: brand awareness is ENORMOUS, and oftentimes has little relevance to the quality of the product (generic brands are generally the same quality level for a significantly lower price). We're not lemmings...we can think outside of brands and TV ads.

[@vaibhav2k13]

Rules against polluting the environment and child slavery doesn't violate the tenants of classical liberalism since in both cases a third party is being directly affected.

[@macaronimick]

So what would classical liberalism say about gay marriage and those who oppose it?

[@mikeblain9973]

macaronimick The liberty principle includes _freedom of association_ in any arena. That means it is wrong for government to stand in the way of any relationship between consenting adults. And obviously, those who oppose freedom of association are opposing (or at least eroding) liberty.

[@joshdootson1722]

In principle classical liberals would say that gay marriage should be legal, it is a freedom issue. However most of us don't think it's the governments job to define what marriage is, it's meant to be a private contract between consenting adults. As for those who oppose it, it's fine by me for people to speak there mind like that, and people shouldn't have a view forced on them, but the same applies the other way.

[@heyitsablackguy9553]

Josh Dootson So simple to understand.

[@mikeblain9973]

macaronimick Part of "freedom of association" is relationship between consenting adults is nobody else's business (especially not government), and the other part is that nobody can be forced to associate with another person against their wishes. Most of the things you mentioned are simply relationships between consenting adults. But you suggested the two principles could justify crimes like pedophilia. I cannot imagine how you could think that. Maybe you can explain what you mean. As far as _"what is best for society",_ I assume you mean someone should decide for everyone else "what is best". NO! If every individual aims for their own best outcome, while respecting the rights of all other people, then whatever you think "society" means will be at its best.

[@LordDirus007]

It use to be that Marriage was a private Union. One in which you would go through a church to obtain. Marriage Certificates were issued by ones own church. So Gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because marriage itself is private not public Union. Now that might pose some issues in terms of divorce. That is why a Legal Contract could fill that void. Much like 2 companies join in the market place. 2 or multiple people could sit down have a lawyer draw up a "Marriage Contract". Joining assets

[@TeaMasterIroh]

Classical Liberal Independent here. Very informative video!

[@thebrownjohnlocke8465]

I don’t know quite if I’m a classical liberal. I’m inspired by classical liberals such as Locke Smith & Mill but also by neo libs such as F Hayek & Friedman. I agree with all the principles listed in the video but I think sometimes exceptions need to be made for the environment as whilst land is private property, the environment is the common heritage of humanity and the free market has little interest in preserving it

[@fatpotatoe6039]

FA Hayek and Friedman ARE classical liberals; neoliberalism is just the name for policies attempting to return us to classical liberal values in current policy settings, or extend market principles to aspects of government and society previously untouched. The environment, if privatised, would be protected or diminished in accordance with profitability, which reflects its value relative to alternatives. If a forest is more profitable to log than get leased as a park, then it will be logged; and this reflects what people prefer. If it is more profitable to be replenished and re-logged, as many forestry companies, do, then that is what will happen. Degradation decreases the land value and future revenues, so it isn't as profitable for proprietors as maintenance, replenishment and re-selling.

[@mikelashewitz260]

It might be good to do a video on the difference between your subject of Classical Liberalism and the insanity of the American liberals of today. I suggest using a Californian perspective to gain the greatest insight.

[@sufialchemy3958]

yes I am. Ever since I studied economics Ive been a free market free trade person. And long in banking career, still not changed my mind.

[@c.kainoabugado7935]

Informative💯

[@LearnLiberty]

Glad you liked it!

[@davidharper8500]

As soon as he mentioned tolerance, I thought of The People Vs. Larry Flint.

[@miladsadeqi1206]

Great👍🏼 Thank you.

[@peeweecx]

You have a lot of insight my friend.

[@asiftanzeem2740]

thank you professor 😊

[@afonsoloureiro4864]

Excellent video, congratulations

[@munstrumridcully]

agreed, a disagreement on opinion is a good chance to exchange ideas, no point in being loud or rude. thanks for the stimulating discourse =) cheers.

[@williambjrke3363]

1:14 Being control of your own life, results in the best life you can make yourself. The "skepticism about power" principle states that the individual knows what's best for themselves. The government takes the control out of my life by making me pay taxes(I live in Danmark (Denmark has very high taxes)). Is there any place where you don't have to pay taxes?

[@anarky3934]

This guy knows me very well #3 I live my life by this core principle

[@BooboosANDBloodshed_95]

I think I've just found a political ideology I can get behind finally

[@Bertk_K]

Yes I am a classical libertarian, for I am inspired by the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, François-Marie Arouet, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, William Ewart Gladstone, and Friedrich Hayek

[@flaviuscoboc8352]

As a Classical Liberal i don't think the only reason for government to exist is just to protect liberty and private property I think government shall educate is people, and now I'm not speaking of free collage or dumb socialist idea's, I'm speaking about the fact that education till the students finish high school shall be free . Cause a society without educated people is a society that's slowly dieying. (sorry for my typo's, I'm not an native English speaker)

[@chinatownbus]

Great video Dr. Ashford

[@garychynne1377]

i believe this stuff. i'm canadian and have quit the liberal party and joined maxime berniers ppc party. thank u gare

[@amandapiano9603]

Thank you for my video, found nothing about liberaism , but this will help me a lot I have exam on friday :O

[@caleblukasg422]

I like Classical Liberalism even though im a Communalist Libertarian.

[@supersam1914]

Excellent video

[@meghaprathapan8202]

Thank you sir

[@pokelynke8232]

Yes. I belive I am a classical libral. The one I agree with most is tolerance. Everyone claims tolerance these days, but then cancels a book writer for saying something transphobic and then ripping her works apart to make it seem worse. If you didn't like what she said or wrote, there's no law that says you have to follow her anymore. Just leave. She has the right to say something. I may not agree with it, but it's what she thinks and what right do I have to say otherwise. What if it's from her religious beliefs? Many of them are against the LBGTQ+ community because they think it's ungodly. Sorry. I get a little upset when I see people say "I'm tolerant", but then get mad at someone's beliefs.

[@rodneyabrett]

KZbin search "The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism" two part lecture by Dr. Davies for a detailed timeline of when and how it happened. :)

[@gilliqbal13]

Things went sideways when Liberlism broke up families thinking they are also a collective units

[@acutefailure1]

This video is about 90-95 percent perfect.

[@TheRealDumbNiggas]

Great, helpful video. It'll help with my college debate tomorrow. **Subscribed** :)

[@hotvision]

I agree with many of the criticisms of modern liberalism today, particularly the toxic PC culture that ignores science and logic for the sake of correctness, but I also don't totally align with this philosophy, and with what one might call libertarianism. My position is at some middle ground between classical liberalism, and modern liberalism. There have been some clear victories with social policy in the US that one could argue increases the liberty within the communities they aim to serve. Namely Social Security and Medicare helping the poor, elderly, and disabled. If the choice is purely libertarian, do we let the severely disabled communities suffer an agonizing death? Drift into crippling bankruptcy and homelessness? A compassionate society that values liberty does not. To value liberty within society, in my view implies that we value the health and well-being of its citizens where we can accommodate them so that they may pursue a good life worth living. What liberty is given to the born-disabled man with no means of providing for himself, and who must squander in pain and debt for his life by virtue of his poor luck? Is that just? I find it cruel. But do we allow those to take advantage of social welfare in perpetuity and without exception? We don't want that either. With that the system loses its balance. I believe there is much grey in these issues that are typically painted black and white by both modern liberals and libertarians alike (or classical liberals/conservatives). Unsurprisingly, the grey approach, is how our modern society and healthy industrialized nations are constructed, aiming to balance the good of individual liberty, free markets, competition, with the greater good of our populations, providing checks and balances on businesses, and markets so that they won't fleece the country, and support and assistance for the most vulnerable communities amongst us so that they may try to live a respectable life. Finding that balance is key, and we in the US don't have that right just yet. But we mustn't forget what got us here, and what's at stake. There is so much more nuance in my opinion than what this comment thread seems to indicate and I think we need to do better.

[@KylePerkino]

I have been a classical liberal and a libertarian Independent since roughly 2011 and I still am one today. I will give you my answers and thoughts on the principles. = [1] Liberty? Yes, because Liberty leads to peace and prosperity while Tyranny leads to war, terrorism, and famine. [2] Individualism? Yes, because you make a better society, i.e. as I am a Connecticut guy I make a better Connecticut, through voluntary individual displays of empathy, and it is no different for the other 49 states of America, I suspect. [3] Skepticism About Power? Yes, because the more authority-power someone has, the more easily corrupted that someone's brain is. [4] Rule of Law? Yes, because tyranny to me means arbitrary and despotic control, and therefore having a constitution that guarantees Decentralization is our best bet for domestically and locally resisting tyranny. [5] Civil Society? Yes, because when it comes to who should provide a social fabric, I prefer the 83% of private citizens that Gallup finds are routine drivers of charity over a welfare state. But in terms of how to get civil society, I prefer slow rides that turn the 'ship of state' around one issue at a time, as I do not think torpedo-ing the welfare state is how to restore civil society. [6] Spontaneous Order? Yes, because I observe that evolution of animal life, customer feedback for businesses, and social media interaction are more effective tools at incentivizing lawful behavior than legislating commands. [7] Free Markets? Yes, because the real question of business regulation is this. Knowing that regulation of business is going to come from some source, do you want that source to be private commoners making peaceful choices, or do you want that source to be political elites making violent threats? My answer is and always will be the "private commoners" option. [8] Toleration? Yes, because I cannot tolerate any authoritarian, puritan, tyrant bullies who try to control what we believe, or how we can or can't dress for our free time, or how we live in general. Instead, I can agree to disagree when it comes to lifestyle choices I may not understand or would not engage in myself, and I am the same with opinions I don't understand or don't agree with. [9] Peace? Varies by issue, because I do realize that free movement and free trade are far superior to nationalism and warfare at maintaining peace and at lifting people out of poverty, like any good adherent to the libertarian & classical liberal principle of International Cooperation realizes. This is also why my reason for wanting to abolish the federal reserve here in America has nothing to do with the gold standard, and everything to do with free banking aka freedom of choice in currencies. But on the other hand, I maintain that it's vital for a free society to have a strong military and to use that military to counter immediate threats to its people or its friends or its allies. As in I do oppose policies of invasion, occupation, and nation-building; but I also oppose any expectation to fix the world through purely just trade and travel alone. Sadly, human nature is such that the world will not be fixed by trade and diplomacy and travel alone. Instead, we have terribly bad regimes, tyranny zones are what I call them, who want to dominate or destroy everyone around them depending on which tyranny zone you speak of, and any free society who wants to stay free will do well to espouse a harsh defense policy but also a wise foreign policy. And yes, military defense and foreign relations are two separate public policy fields. [10] Limited Government? Yes, and as an American, I'd like a deeply limited National government and for each one of the 50 states to be its own democracy lab of addressing public policy issues like "healthcare" and "education" and "environment" and "marriage" and "abortion" that do not even appear once in the entire Enumerated Powers list. = By the way, the Enumerated Powers List is Article One Section Eight of the US Constitution. If you have read this entire comment, then congrats and thank you. ~Kyle S. Perkins

[@pseudogenesis]

No problem, sir.

[@el-mehdibenchaib9950]

I agree with classical liberalism, I'm a liberal.

[@stephengibbons866]

So, accordingly I'm a hard core Classical Liberal. Therefore, Classical Liberalism is synonymous with Political Conservatism, which is the opposite of Political Liberalism. Why not just call Classical Liberalism Conservatism? It would be less confusing.

[@niclasstahl5443]

No, conservatism means only to preserve a society as it is. I would assume that you're an American and if you're a conservative in America you follow the constitution witch is very libertarian. For me as a swede if i would call myself a conservative it would mean that I was a liberal big government pro welfare state and so forth.

[@stephengibbons866]

Niclas Ståhl I know that's the dictionary definition of conservatism but of course it's more than that. It's an ideology that puts freedom before other values. Conservatives trust the governed more than the government. I didn't know that "conservative" means the opposite in other countries of what it means in the U.S. Interesting.

[@stephengibbons866]

***** Ok, thanks.

[@wikieditspam]

I think only in the sense that you'd be an American conservative because you retain old values. Conservatism today in the US is weird because it's influenced by Neo Conservatism which is basically our living nightmare. I think conservationism in Europe would primarily be influenced by the Hobbes' philosophy while most classical liberals are influenced by Locke and his students like Jefferson.

[@zero_six_romeo]

I think [American] libertarians follow closer to political conservatism because of there support for a limited, constitutional government, whereas Republicans follow social conservatism because of their support for traditionalism. In terms of liberalism, I think both libertarians and progressives are generally liberal. The fundamental difference I see between the two political philosophies is that libertarians support social hierarchy and social inequality (right-wing), whereas progressives generally support social equality and social justice (left-wing). Democrats and Republicans are generally not liberals because they are both authoritarian parties when you look at their history. It is also my opinion that no group of people in the US are truly liberals, because I think it requires a degree of centrism that everyone lacks.

[@e7venjedi]

I definitely agree with the first. Can you define chaos/provide an example of what you mean?

"What distinguishes the postwar libertarians in our view, what makes them in many ways the paradigms of libertarianism, is their enthusiasm for synthesis and systematization. But system-building has its costs. One of the costs is that insights that do not fit neatly into one’s axiomatic worldview are discarded. The history of prewar free market thinking, we contend, contains moral resources that are worth recovering-even at the cost of conceptual simplicity. The classical liberal tradition of Locke, Smith, and Spencer, for example, gave great weight to property rights in a way that checked governmental power. But none of the early liberal thinkers treated property rights as moral absolutes, and thus none of them was forced by axiom to deny that concern for the poor was a legitimate consideration in institutional design. We believe that classical liberalism, not axiomatic libertarianism, is the true heir of the liberal tradition." Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi, A Bleeding Heart History of Libertarianism, Cato Unbound, Apr 2012. cato-unbound.org/2012/04/02/matt-zwolinski-john-tomasi/bleeding-heart-history-libertarianism