Liberalism

Moving this interesting discussion out of the shoutbox.

In its original form, liberalism believed in freedom and equality as its two principles. Libertarianism, which grew out of liberalism, believes in freedom but not equality. That's how I understand it anyway. It was mentioned on the shoutbox how in the us, a "classical" liberal is one who adheres more to the libertarian view, and I guess I have a problem with that. You can't segregate social contracts and natural law, the two premises of freedom and equality, into social, economic and political issues. Therefore it only follows that a libertarian cannot be a liberal. You kind of do need to accept both for that. Over here anyway, "classical" liberalism would be more like John Locke type stuff.

I'm interested in your perspective though. I'm a liberal; I believe in freedom and equality. What does that mean to you?

I agreed strongly with your point about "liberty" not meaning anything anymore.

To say, "I believe in freedom" is pointless unless someone qualifies it, unless you're an extreme libertarian. I believe in freedom as well, but that doesn't mean, "freedom without limitations".

I support equality of everything I can think of - except age... I still think there should be a minimum age set for a bunch of things. Would I be right in thinking that liberals would be against things like minimum age for voting, drinking, driving etc? What about minimum wage- what would a liberal stance on that be?

admin: From my understanding, Classical liberalism is better represented by libertarianism than modern liberalism. I would suggest reading Robert Nozick if you are interested in classical liberalism. I have only read one book by him, finished it and wasn't too excited honestly. Classical liberalism is concerned with freedom(freedom of religion, freedom of press), equality under the law and equality of opportunity from my understanding. A simple understanding in my opinion would be the American Constitution which was founded on negative rights. Versus Modern liberalism which seems to be concerned with equality of results(social justice) as well as equality of opportunity. This is where modern liberalism and classical liberalism must divorce. Modern liberalism insists upon positive rights which demands people to participate in society to bring about "social and economic justice." While classical liberalism insists upon negative rights which is the freedom from participating in society.

NOTE: The United States does not really have "Conservatives" as many claim to be. There must be a basis for Traditional Conservatism(Burke) to exist in a country. There is no basis in the US since it was conceived as a social classless society(no official monarchy, no official gentry ) with the exception of slavery. In the United States, many of these "Conservatives" celebrate Thomas Jefferson, a classical liberal who celebrated the French Revolution. While "Liberals" celebrate Thomas Paine, a man who experienced the French revolution. Conservatives in the US were people like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton whom are hardly mentioned in modern US. The United States only has a liberal tradition, there was only a minor Conservative tradition that diluted back in the 19th century some time.

Tophatdoc: I hope I wrote clearly because I tried to explain my understanding thoroughly.

nzlockie: Definitions are always tricky with this kind of thing. Obviously the freedom to do whatever you like is absurd. But then you also have freedom from things, like freedom from being shot. This is the basis of the usual libertarian mantra of "do what you like but don't use force on others". A liberal would also support a couple of government imposed restrictions on freedom to help ensure equality. Sometimes this can be very overt, such as progressive taxation, and sometimes a little more substantive, like consumer protection laws. Almost all liberals (except for one group known as "extreme socialists") think there should be some limit on how far the government goes with this, though.

I think within most political ideologies there's scope for a lot of disagreement when it comes to specific policies. Personally, for example, in NZ I'd favor a slightly lower age for voting (16), a slightly higher age for driving (18) and about the same for drinking. But that's not a particularly popular position among liberals. I think having a minimum wage of some sort would be generally supported by liberals, but where exactly it should be set there is some disagreement over. Personally I think it's fine where it is for now but I'd like to see it automatically indexed every few years to the rate of inflation, rather than having the government propose and vote on it every single time. Most liberals in New Zealand would probably like to see it raised slightly.

Tophatdoc: It's probably just the way you phrased it, but you make it sound like the only difference between modern and classical liberalism is social justice, which makes no sense to me because the concept of social justice goes back to Plato. It predates liberalism itself. It's about as classical as you can get.

I guess I personally support social justice up to the point where it morphs into affirmative action. Things get murky around there.

admin: From my interpretations, I agree with the aspect of Plato and social justice. But I am referring to social justice being enforced by the state is the key here(I.E progressivism) for the divorce. I think all too often we in the United States confuse terms( I don't know about New Zealand). Progressivism is not a political philosophy but a practical view of governing and reforming society. There can be progressive liberals and progressive conservatives because progressivism relates to the view of governance itself. Hence, modern liberalism uses the state to fix societal ills. This why in my opinion that Carl Schmitt was almost prophetic when he stated that liberalism must eventually adopt illiberal characteristics because of the existence of the growing state with its' totality.

You will have to excuse my incompetence on the matter. I write better than I type, and I speak better than I write(at least, I think so) lol. I was trying to state my understanding rather than my opinion originally. I don't have a strong opinion on social justice one way or another.