Is there a difference between libertarianism and classical liberalism?
Is classical liberalism more general term?
Should we try to fight back liberalism term, if it is a lot of common between old liberalism of Locke, Hume and others (classical liberalism)? (it is american task, in Europe liberalism is usually understood in primary definition).
Is anarcho-capitalism a part of libertarianism and classical liberalism, or, as Mises said, anarchism is opposite to liberalism?
Are neoliberalism, conservative liberalism, ordoliberalism parts of libertarianism and classical liberalism.
Or, as it is in english Wikipedia, they are parts of liberalism (with classical liberalism), but libertarianism is something very different?
I’ve taken the difference to be largely one of motivation, although I suppose there could also be policy differences, in particular how to deal with living in an imperfect world. A libertarian holds that the highest value is liberty. A classical liberal believes in the classic liberal values - tolerance, equality, humanism, and so on, and tended to believe that liberty was a means to achieve these.
What?
Anarchism is consistent libertarianism. It is also consistent classical liberalism.
Locke was a libertarian. I don’t know about Spencer. Mises was a libertarian. Hayek I’m not sure about, but I suspect he might have been a libertarian, although he often spoke like a classical liberal. Friedman was neither, if anything he was a neoliberal, but a more useful term today would be conservative. Ayn Rand was a libertarian. Mises was not a classical liberal, Hayek was, Friedman was not, Rand was not, Rothbard was not, Nozick probably was not.
I sensed that, but I still can’t make heads or tails of what exactly you’re saying about it. Here’s the thing - liberal policies have not been consistent across history, but liberal philosophy has. It’s just that American liberals have a different idea about how to achieve their liberal goals - a wrong idea, practically and morally. They don’t understand economics, and they have no respect for liberty. On the other hand, it’s easy to see where they got their ideas from. They believed, classically, in a free economy. The conservatives, meanwhile, built an actuality in which a few oligarchs enrich themselves through state power at the expense of everyone else. How should a liberal react in such a situation? If it is impossible to remove the privilege, then perhaps the liberal will think they should try to leverage the power of the state to take back from the oligarchs some of their extracted wealth. It’s hard to object morally, even if the implementation would be impossible. But over time, liberalism forgot why it was doing this, and began to think that using the state to take from the rich and give to the poor is simply a good method for getting equality.
By the way, the New Deal was profoundly conservative, and was originally opposed by the liberals.
But Mises considered himself as classical liberal. M.Friedman considered himself as libertarian. In some questions M.Friedman was more “pro-liberty” then Mises.
Today there are two libelisms: liberalism of liberty (libertarianism) and liberalism of equity. Both take their root from classical liberalism. But they went in different ways and are VERY different now. So who should name himself as liberal. I think it is important to look in the word “liberalism”. It is nt “equalism” or “welfarism”. The root is french “liber”, free. Liberty, not equity, humanism or tolerance is central concept of liberalism.
Ayn Rand was definitely not a libertarian. Mises a libertarian…ehhh its hard to say because in theory he approved of secession down to the level of the individual. I see that as something a libertarian would believe in. He kind of waffled on government though. I think he is really the bridge between classical liberalism and libertarianism because he recognizes that the government is no longer a neutral institution which could be used for the betterment of mankind but yet is unwilling to completely do away with it. Rothbard is definitely a libertarian. Friedman, a classical liberal, and that is probably a generous claim. Nozick flirted with libertarianism but then abandoned it.
Should we try to fight back liberalism term, if it is a lot of common between old liberalism of Locke, Hume and others (classical liberalism)? (it is american task, in Europe liberalism is usually understood in primary definition).
Liberalism as well as libertarianism are very broad terms. Just about all schools of major political thought today come from liberalism. A European (18)“60’s” liberal were in many cases socialist. Proudhon, Bakunin, and Marx are all from the liberal school of thought and are all libertarians. In fact socialist types may have a better claim to the word “libertarian” than the US styled libertarians, as they used the term 1st.
To clarify my point, socialism was seen as nothing more than an extension of liberalism. In the 1800’s a clear dichotomy was not made, as you would often see terms like “political liberal”, “social liberal” (socialists), “human liberal”, etc. “Liberty as an intrinsic value”, equalitarian sentimentality, “the welfare of all”, “the brotherhood of man” these are things found in both the socialists and early liberal causes (despite some argument in definitions). I also think the “welfare” and “brothehoodr” sentiement was more strongly defined among the early liberals, than the free market property sense of the philosophy.
That is all I am pointing out. It may be natural to have the two words seperated now, I don’t know. But the libertarians on this site could also be catagorized as “liberal”, “libertarian”, and “anarchist” as I don’t see how any of those words are inappropriate. The only small quip I could see would be being late commers in using terms such as “anarchist” and “libertarian” when those words were used by people who detested capitalism before the propertarians used it. So it could add a bit of confusion, still I think the words are appropriate.
Liberalism is just anti ancien regime, regardless of what methods they wished to use to free themselves from the lords, landowners, and the church.
They also all seem to share some form of egalitarianism, which places mankind the concept, above the individual (this includes libertarians too). In this way, there is still a compass to guide action towards the goal (any sect of) liberalism (now that god and his ordined leaders have been put out of the picture) seeks to achieve.
As Stirner said (about 165 years ago) the Egoist is post liberal, since they hold no ideas above their self- interest. AnCaps and LeftAns are about as close to egoist as you can get in the spectrum of Liberalism, but since they are still hung up on promoting ideas above desire (natural rights for the AnCaps, equality for the Left Ans), they haven’t quite totally abolished faith in fixed ideals.
Aren’t all acting individuals in your mythology bestowed with inaleiable rights? That’s a type of universal equality, or a type of (minimum) egalitarianism, right?
He’s correct insofar as libertarians implicitly embrace some form of humanism in their notions of universal human rights. Relative to Stirnerian standards, that’s still a “spook”, although perhaps milder than others.
I don’t believe in human rights but sentient rights. and whatever reverence i hold for the class of individuals (sentient-kind) only stems from the class being composed of sentient individuals. so what of my hierarchy of concepts?
Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with natural rights, its just institutions. Even libertarians who support anarcho-capitalism don’t all support, or believe in natural rights.