"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Ask the Libertarian
Why libertarian and why not “classical liberal”?
March 25th, 2011, 3:38 pm · 13 Comments · posted by thinkfree
Why libertarian and why not “classical liberal”? What’s the difference
between the two?
between the two?
- Illiberal in Los Angeles, CA
~
Classical liberals tend to focus mainly on legal issues, not so much on public policies and they still adhere to some statist notions about taxes, conscription, etc. Libertarians propose that human liberty may not be compromised for any reason at all.
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
Thanks for the definition. Along the same lines, how would you describe Republicans, and the difference between them and Libertarians?
The “Party of Oxymoron”: “Individualists unite!”
I would slightly disagree with this distinction. A classical liberal is one who recognizes the important legitimate functions of the government, but sees the government’s role as protecting individual liberty. The market is the only capable arbiter and the only way to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome. The state must always be very clearly defined and not stray at all beyond its necessary but limited role.
A libertarian on the other hand, often sees no need for the state at all. Murray Rothbard is a prominent libertarian and an unabashed anarchist. Most libertarians are almost indistinguishable from classical liberals, but it’s those libertarians that degenerate the philosophy of limited government into anarchy is where the distinction lies.
The line is certainly fine at times, but the distinction is important. Libertarians are receptive to anarchy whereas classical liberals are not.
P.S. I have never come across a classical liberal that defended conscription.
P.P.S. Notably, I have never heard of classical liberal that has opposed free immigration, but some (not all) libertarians are very much opposed to free immigration. A VERY big distinction in my mind.
It’s possible that free immigration would not be an issue if it weren’t for the associated tax-burden.
I disagree. I think the terms can be used interchangeably. Any difference is hair-splitting and conjecture.
The difference between a classical liberal and a libertarian is that the former believes in the contradiction that the state gets to violate property rights in order to protect property rights while the latter is against the violation of property rights, no matter who does it.
Of course, people may apply labels to themselves without qualification, and this is only my experience as I moved from the former to the latter because I couldn’t reconcile the logic of the state’s privilege to violate property to pay for itself in order to fulfill its mandate to protect property.
Classic liberals espouse many of the ideas of today’s conservatives, such as individual freedoms and limited government. Today’s liberals espouse large government and nanny state control over our lives.
I believe there is some confusion here with Anarchism and Libertariainism as well as Classical Liberalism. Libertarian thought was a result of Classical LIberalism and at one time they were probably indistinguishable, however, many Classical Liberals embraced the philosophy of Utilitarianism as opposed to Natural Law and Rights. I would say that now Libertarianism exists as a part of the spectrum of Classical Liberalism. Anarchism is based on the belief that no state is necessary or beneficial. Libertarianism, although using the same philosophical basis as Anarchism, recognizes the need for a state to protect individual rights.
Gentlemen, I appreciate this discussion more than I can say. I’ve been scouring the internet to find someone, anyone, who will recognize that there IS a distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism. However, I would yet another element to the discussion which has already been somewhat implied by others here. Namely, that there is yet still a difference between American conservatism (not referring to neoconservatism, but genuine classical conservatism) and classical liberalism as well. If you’d like, I view classical liberalism as the bridge between classical conservatism and libertarianism, both philosophically and in the policy decisions which are sought.
In the US there really is no difference between the Republicans (conservatives) and the Democrats (liberials) as both parties when viewed from to position of what did they do when in power. Both parties make passive attempts at forwarding “their platform”, compromise, and then pass the lead to the other party. They decided long ago that sharing power is far better than fighting and have basicly conceded to a centralist goverment with the grand deception of “choice” to placate the masses. Because niether will risk the status quo and truly attack the other party. This became apparent when a so called “raging liberial” named Pelosi rose to speaker of the house and declaired there would be no impeachment hearing against President Bush when there was evidence that should of at least be considered. Why would she make such a decisive statement? Isn’t it the Speakers duty to consider impeachment when evidence is presented? Why would a staunch liberial refuse to investigate a President, especialy one who had so much conterversy at the time? The answer is simple the liberials controlled both houses and could of impeached him. I remind you that when Clinton was impeached there was no way the liberial controlled senate was going to vote him out, thus the conservative house could make a grand showing knowing all the while that it wasn’t going to pass. However Pelosi knew when she became speaker that she did have enough support in both the house and senate to impeach Bush and possibly destroy the conservatives. That would have been a problem indeed as what ever party that rose to fill the gap may not have been willing to “share” power and force the liberials to really fight to stay in power.
It is the continued cooperation between the parties and their common desire to maintain the status quo that forces us to consider then one effective party seperated only by whos turn it is.
I think Randy Dixon’s response is very good. I would add that libertarianism is probably the only politically active torch bearer for classical liberalism in the 20th and 21st centuries. However, it is a myopic view of classical liberalism, sort of a purified, or more distilled version of it.
Putting it this way: if classical liberalism is a glass of beer, libertarianism is a glass of single malt scotch!
Just remember folks it was George Washington who was admantly opposed to the 2 Party system of governing. It stated, “it is too open to corruption.” Duh!
Want more visitors?…
We hear you. Your content is great, but you’re still not getting visits. We can help with our premium packages! Check them at http://2500wikilinks.completeseocontrol.com/...