Amity Shales has an opinion column on Bloomberg, and she makes a statement and I am still trying to make sense of it:
"Modern libertarianism is a derivative of classical liberalism, though a limited one."
How is modern libertarianism a "limited" derivative of classical liberalism? Is it a derivative at all? What are the differences? I have always believed that modern libertarians, i.e. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, etc., were classical liberals, not the phony libertarians such as Neal Boortz and Bob Barr. Am I missing something?
Source is here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=aoiYcMi6CkNA
richie2044:How is modern libertarianism a "limited" derivative of classical liberalism? Is it a derivative at all? What are the differences?
Depends upon how classical liberalism is defined, but I generally go with considering the philosophers like Locke, J.S. Mill, Rousseau, Nietzche, Hume, et al to be classical liberal. Classical liberalism is the broad poltical view that gained traction over a long period of time, the idea that individuals had rights, and that governments should protect those rights and otherwise be limited in their actions. By looking at the classical liberal philosophers, though, it's clear that there was no solid consensus about the basis of the view, the proper conception of rights, or the limits of government, and there were other conflicting ideas, such as the Social Contract.
I would agree that libertarianism is derived from classical liberalism, and that libertarianism isn't so much "limited" as it is more specific about things that classical liberalism wasn't very specific about. Libertarianism provides a stronger and more clearly defined basis for individual rights and limits on governments, and throws out concepts like the Social Contract altogether.
Thank you for your point.
Maybe it is meant in historical evolution of classical liberalism like you said. Maybe libetarianism is "extrem form" of classical liberalism. But libertarianism can be derived from liberalism by subject. Result is lowering importance of government and its functions.
Libertarianism as "extreme classical liberalism". Might make a good tag line!
Norman Barry has written a book on the different trends into the contemporary libertarian tradition, fittingly titled "On classical liberalism and libertarianism"; where he differentiates the two on the basis of the consequentialist (ie, economic or utilitarian) v. deontological (normative) foundation of the respective theories. He does, however, concedes that he is using this classification as a short-hand in the absence of a more sophisticated treatment of the dividng line. '
In plain/street english, libertarianism is seen (as the previous poster underlined it) just as an extreme/radical variant of classical liberalism, somewhere between liberalism and anarchism... just taking the liberal concepts further and accepting their logical consequences...
M-la-maudite:In plain/street english, libertarianism is seen (as the previous poster underlined it) just as an extreme/radical variant of classical liberalism, somewhere between liberalism and anarchism... just taking the liberal concepts further and accepting their logical consequences...
I just found this topic through google since I was searching for the differences. It's about how much government you think is necessary. Anarcho-capitalists think that it would be better without any government. Classical liberals want limited government. They don't want the government to inferfere with your daily lives. They also don't want intervention in the economy. Libertarians want even less intervention than that. It's more or less the same as classical liberalism. Libertarians think that the state is coercive more, and, that they want even less government than classical liberals.
This is a great article on it: http://www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm
Classical liberals want limited government
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Classical liberals want limited government Actually classical liberalism and libertarianism are two names for the same philosophy, and libertarian ideas on no-government are as old as 1849, and were presented by Gustave de Molinari, who definitely was a 'classical liberal'.
It is my belief that the philosophy is slightly different. Libertarians focus more on what the government shouldn't do. I think the classical liberal philosophy is less specific. It doesn't emphasize the need for protection against the coercive power of the state that much. Both philosophies believe in the same essentials. However, libertarianism is more specific. It's really an out-growth of the classical liberal philosophy.
You have Constitutionalism today within parties like the Constitution Party. Then you have libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. Both are classical liberals but different versions. Constitutionalist allow for tarriffs and are more states rights focused, though they do want to dramatically limited government. Libertarians are more free market and individual rights in their approach to limited government. 90% of the time both come to the sam conclusion but sometimes not for the same reason. Then you have Anarchism which is truly the radicalized classical liberalism. Proudhon is the father of modern anarchism and created mutualism. Mutualism is a free market private property system but supports a labor theory of economic value and worker cooperatives. From Proudhon you have later anarchists that veered to the right such as Tucker who went in a totally individualistic direction and then other beyond him that created anarco capitalism. Other anarchists veered left and created collectivist and communist anarchisms. I do believe it would be possible for classical liberalists (minarchists) and anarchists (various schools) to find common ground and work together. I honestly don't classifiy myself as anything but I share a large body of commonality with anarchists, libertarians, and constitutionalists. I tend to lean in a mutualist direction but can see some value in capitalism and socialism to some degree. Many libertarians and anarcho capitalists do realize the problems of state capitalism or as Ron Paul calls it "corporatism" so there could be common ground. I could envision a political community that was free and decentralized that had elements of capitalism, mutualism, and maybe even some community owned property and resources (collectivist)
macsnafu:but I generally go with considering the philosophers like Locke, J.S. Mill, Rousseau, Nietzche, Hume, et al to be classical liberal.
What makes Nietzche a classical liberal? Or even J.S. Mill?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap