What are the differences between Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism?

If there are any?

 

I think the big difference is the stance on social programs ie welfare, healthcare, etc...


A simplified way of looking at the three parties: Democrat, Republican, and Libertarians, is to consider policy on morality, big business, and social issues.

Democrats want to regulate big business and promote more social programs. Republicans want to legislating morality, and libertarians want the gov. to stay out of the way in general.

Just my two cents.

 

Thus, Democrats are the least of the three evils.

 

to answer your question, there are no practical differences between libertarianism and classical liberalism, the only country where socialists are refered to as "liberals" is the u.s., everyone else knows better.

 

the only country where socialists are refered to as "liberals" is the u.s

Sorry, but the facts are not with you on this one. Most liberals I know are not only capitalists, but are actually entrepreneurs themselves. That's about as anti-socialist as you can get. For every "liberal" you can name who has ever advocated even a limited experiment with socialism, I'll name ten who are hard-working and successful capitalist entrepreneurs.

 

lol

that bs isn't even worth time you spent typing it. liberals in the u.s. hate capitalism, with a passion.

 

Well...for one I don't have that much against Libertarians and I hate Liberals.


Also, Libertarians from my experiences are more inclined to go Conservative rather than Liberal, I've met more than enough Libertarians at Conservative Conventions.

 

liberals in the u.s. hate capitalism, with a passion.

Yet you can't cite an example, not even one . May George Soros sodomize you.

 

an example? are you kidding?

minimum wage laws
labor unions
protectionist tarifs
progressive income tax
in favor of nationalizing the energy and healthcare industries
opposed to school choice (hell cali libs hate competition so much they just outlawed un-accredited parents homeschooling their own kids)

that's just at the top of my head, but you're joking if you think anyone other than you believes that american liberals are pro-capitalism, they make it well known they are against anything that involves competition and they despise financial success.

 

an example? are you kidding?

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I'm asking you to name a well-known person who is liberal, one that we all know, and will likely all agree to be a "liberal." Just name one. Preferably (if you wish to advance your argument) you will name one who is also socialist. I doubt you can find one in a reasonable amount of time, but please, feel free to try.

 

Why not Libertarians? What's wrong with their views? (not instigating, just curious).
I have to say, I consider myself a Libertarian... the idea of the government finally butting out doesn't seem bad...

 

this reminds me of a bit of a discussion I was having with someone (pretty sure it was Stev90).
I consider myself a Libertarian... but also very liberal. I remember how I first learned about Libertarianism in school... our teacher (a very intelligent woman who taught U.S. Government and History) had us all break into groups and study different political groups; Republican, Democrat, etc.
Me of course, being stubborn and anti-social as always, opted to work alone as usual. I told my teacher my views and how i felt like I didn't fit into Republican or Democrat... she suggested I study Libertarianism... this was before all the Ron Paul hype mind you (about a year ago).
I think the government should have little if any involvement in our lives... as long as you don't hurt anyone else, do what you want. I especially support the idea that what i do with my body and mind is my choice.

 

Why not Libertarians? What's wrong with their views? (not instigating, just curious).

Liberals tend to believe in a society based on laws, with regulations needed for order (e.g. traffic lights) published and generally known, with courts of law and guaranteed (supposedly) rights to protect the innocent. Libertarians, on the other hand, tend to believe that all such matters will work themselves out on their own if you simply allow "market forces" completely unlimited ability to operate (no taxes, no police, and no rules). One takes into account human nature, the other assumes we will somehow become perfect beings if only we stop taxing and regulating.

 

Is anarchism and libertarianism really so alike? I personally just prefer as little government involvement as possible.

 

Libertarianism is closer to the ideals of the early hippies on Haight-Ashbury, before the Death of Hippie.

The vibe of the hippies of Haight-Ashbury at that time was communal.

Rules, regulations, restrictions, authority- any kind of authority coming from society was put into question and frequently antagonized.

We can change the world, rearrange the world​

​

(Chorus) it's dying - if you believe in justice​

(Chorus) dying - and if you believe in freedom​

(Chorus) dying - let a man live his own life​

dying - rules and regulations, who needs them, open up the door​

.​

Chicago - Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young​

 

Shane99x: In what part of the original question as posted by Inquiring-Mind was the word Socialism mentioned. Stick to the question. You say that there are only practical differences between the libs that were mentioned, really. There is quite a gulf say between say the liberalism of J Rawls and that of m Friedman, or that of J Mill and J Locke.

 

It cracks me up when an ambitious and hardworking capitalist entrepreneur is called a "socialist" simply because he believes in the rule of law and the most minimal regulations required to prevent corporations from killing people outright. Then when you call 'em on it, they slide under the closest slab of limestone.

 

It goes to the heart of the question, the only reason there are seperate labels for libertarianism and classical liberalism is that in the u.s. it became necessary after the progressives took over liberal institutions to differentiate classical liberalism from modern liberalism, which is socialist in nature, thus the birth of "libertarianism" which is really just classical liberalism. The only real difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism is name only, the reason behind that difference is the socialist aspects of modern liberalism have made the word "liberal" or "liberalism" unattractive to those who believe in free markets, small government, and personal liberty instead of state economic intrusion, centralized and expanding government, and identity politics.

In other words, i was sticking to the question, thank you very much.

 

Firstly I do not believe that classical liberalism is the same thing as modern economic libertarianism or neo liberalism. In my view the politically minded neo liberalism's and so called free marketeers have been cherry picking from the the ideas of Smith, Locke, Mill and others to support there own propaganda for a long time.

I do not think that you can equate modern social liberals or progressives with socialists or marxists. In any case the former with there so called welfare programs are during times of political/economic pressure a soft target for conservatives and treasury raiser gangs while the later Marxists do not exist in your country as a political force. Behind all this the reel game goes on, namely the extensive financial and legislative support for the corparate sector and its bed partner the military, the very institutions that will with the state collude to eat into your freedoms and civil liberties.

 

I don't really see the parallels between libertarianism and liberalism. I mean, apart from the similar names, libertarianism seems more right wing than left wing. It dresses itself up as "pro-freedom", but proposes relying on the good will of the public to preserve that freedom. I'm a little unclear on the difference between classic and modern liberalism, but libertarianism seems actually pretty damn far from liberalism as it's understood in this country, now I think about it.