Ask the Libertarian

 17 Comments

• Salon Denver says:

  April 3, 2011 at 11:47 am

  Thanks for the definition. Along the same lines, how would you describe Republicans, and the difference between them and Libertarians?
• Tiktok says:

  April 14, 2011 at 9:26 pm

  The “Party of Oxymoron”: “Individualists unite!”
• onliberty says:

  May 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm

  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.
• Jim says:

  June 2, 2011 at 9:23 am

  It’s possible that free immigration would not be an issue if it weren’t for the associated tax-burden.
• Thomas J. Lucente Jr. says:

  June 28, 2011 at 7:33 pm

  I disagree. I think the terms can be used interchangeably. Any difference is hair-splitting and conjecture.
• JD says:

  August 1, 2011 at 1:51 pm

  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.
• Paul Kersey says:

  September 7, 2011 at 8:14 am

  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.
• Randy Dixon` says:

  November 27, 2011 at 1:02 am

  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.
• buffysummersfanboy says:

  November 27, 2011 at 10:46 am

  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.
• Don says:

  December 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm

  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.
• kayawanee says:

  January 20, 2012 at 11:50 am

  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!
• Mike Brewer says:

  February 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm

  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!
• Ranking Your Website in Google says:

  April 12, 2012 at 1:00 am

  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/…
• Jacob says:

  June 13, 2012 at 7:52 pm

  The largest difference is that liberals of today think the government should fix everything. While libertarians want you to make your own decisions and take care of yourself. That’s why I was drawn to the party anyways I want truth and accountability not lies and classification.
• John says:

  June 19, 2012 at 11:16 pm

  Jacob – You are confused; Google “classical liberal.”
• alexeth says:

  October 17, 2012 at 3:18 pm

  Thanks, OnLiberty. Yours is a more correct analysis than the original definition response.
  TJL Jr. It’s certainly not conjecture, though it may be hair splitting. There is a reason the schools parted ways. Locke is probably the essential “classic liberal” and advocated that government’s role is to defend individual liberty. The utter failure of government to do that was recognized by libertarians who drew the distinction. Classical Liberal also is a distinction from the modern newspeak re-definition of “liberal” to mean something completely opposite of what it used to mean.
• Michael says:

  November 26, 2012 at 11:55 pm

  Randy Dixon gave a very accurate assessment of how many people here are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism. Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism ARE synonymous. Both advocate government within a limited capacity, whereas only Anarchism specifically advocates no government. The change in terms from Classical Liberalism to Libertarianism occurred here in the U.S. when the term liberal became incorrectly associated with social democracy. To this day, in Europe, political parties that we would deem as Libertarian parties here self identify as Liberals. Example being the German FDP party which utilizes the slogan “die liberalen” or “the liberals”.

Orange Punch Blog | Election 2012 | Political Cartoons | Letters to the Editor | Editorials | Columns | Video | Photo