Who is a liberal: Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin, Mises, de Jasay, Chomsky, Stirner, Spencer, rothbard, Krugman, Locke, Smith, Burke, Hume, rousseau. Do all these people have a claim to liberalism in the broadest definition of the word? Who is definatly NOT a liberal?
What political philosophies are a branch of liberalism? Progressivism, Socialism, Anarchism, etc?
My intuition tells me Fascism and Nazism are not, but why?
B) In the practicle sense of the word:
What does it mean?
Who should it refer to and why?
When (at what time in history) do we (if we do) switch the use of the word and meaning and why?
C) What is the relationship of Conservatism (in Western Countries) to liberalism? How much of an overlap is there (maybe via a venn diagram)
I ask these obvious questions, just because I feel it needs a bit of clarification and I think it could be somewhat suprisingly controversial. Please if you decide to give an answer, try to give a source.
I will never consider socialists a part of liberalism the same way I think there is no “classical liberalism” only liberalism, otherwise I would like “libertarian socialists” to call themselves “classical libertarians”.
Remember, all that “liberal” means is in favor of new things, and all that “conservative” means is in favor of old things. If I am conservative in my viewpoint then my viewpoint remains as it was before the new viewpoints arrived or gained popularity.
Everyone you named above it for large changes in society, by this logic both Marx and Rothbard are extremely liberal and are put on the far side of the left on the right and left spectrum.
This is part of why it is that the right/left spectrum is so damn pointless and should be replaced with a two axis graph each axis representing economic and social issues. This spectrum would actually give you a general idea as to WHAT THEIR ACTUAL POLICIES WERE.
Seriously if I were to appear on a political scale (I don’t know if that’s possible for an anarchist) then I would either appear as far left as you can go, or only slightly to the left because the laissez faire economic policy I promote is considered enough of a rightist idea to balance it all out.
Furthermore what might be liberal in one point and time or nation would probably be conservative in another. For instance Adam Smith, had he lived about 3 decades later would have probably been fairly conservative. Conservatives in China are pretty much old style militant and ultra national Marxists. I’m sure that a liberal in Iran would (or at least could) probably be fairly libertarian.
This is a good deal of the reason why it is so sad that a modern day American liberal when you disagree with him will assume that you’re an idiot conservative, and a conservative will assume that you’re a dumbass panzy liberal.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual liberty.
Let’s beak down that definition:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
OK, so what is truth?
Truth can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard.
So, in it’s most basic sense, Liberalism posits that it is objectively true that freedom of the individual is important.
Now there are many ways to approach the interpretation of “freedom” and “individual”. This is why under the umbrella of Liberalism, sects as diverse as Libertarianism, to Communism, to National Socialism can be classified together.
From the egoist perspective, it is a fixed idea, that is, it implies an truth, of which the desires of the individual are subservient. Further, Liberalism is faith in man’s capability of determining truth, replacing a deity as giver of oughts, or laws of behavior.
But can it, and should it be broken down IE a practicle use for the term? And how is it applied today? If one values “individual liberty” strictly off of consequentialist terms wouldn’t that still count as a liberal and not as a truther? And I think this is why someone like de Jasay and Mises are liberals and not Liberals.
I think all political terms in this sense today have more and less been rendered absolutely useless via semantic fiat.
No one seems to know exactly what a liberal is or what a conservative is. Don’t even get me started on anarchists.
People generally think anarcho-leftists are the only one that exist and this is why I shy away from announcing that I’m an AnCap and more often refer to myself as a classical liberal.
People get the wrong ideas when they hear anarchy/anarchist.
Really? When I talk to most people and they here that I’m an anarchist they either think that (in order of commonality)
I’m insane
I’m a crazy rebel who wants guns in the street and a war of man against man.
That I’m not so much left per se as I think that humans are perfect and infallable
That I’m a communist
A little while back in my European History course the teacher gave a handout describing the political spectrum and it had things like liberal, conservative, socialist and so on and anarchy at the very top of the page.
It read: “A society in which there is no government, law, or social order”
As he talked (he didn’t even mention anarchism) I took my pencil and shaded out the last two parts of that.
I think it should be. It is an ideology, which is defined as:
An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a ‘received consciousness’ or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process
This last bit is important. Here is the definition of Normative:
See, I think it could be a quality of one person. Example: I have the qualities of a man, a lover of Stravinsky, Homer, etc.
If some one wished to catagorize liking Stravinsky, Homer, and good American rye whiskey together and call it Xism, I would be sort of an Xist by default, as I like the consequences of that catagory.
If I think individual “rights”, open markets, individualism etc would serve me best I suppose I would be a liberal, right?
Liberalism used to mean a form of negative rights: freedom to do with your property/person as you wish. Now (in the US) it’s taken on a form of positive rights: freedom to get stuff and TAKE stuff from others.
So in order for me to hold an ideology I have to want it spread?
If I wanted to date Mary Sue and wanted a romantic relationship with her, and than actively asked her out to the sock hop, there by spreading my beliefs that we should date, would I be a “Mary Sue relationship Idealogue”?
It is a tool of social change. It effects my social environment; for better if she says yes, for worse if she says no. It could also impact the environment of others.