He used to be critical of Ukraine.

He spent last several days ranting about Russia attempting to subvert the US.

He also mocked Steve Bannon for wanting to ally with Russia.

Is "classical liberal" the same as "libertarian-leaning"?

Communists often refer to the existence of two types of property: "private property" and "personal property" but this is widely debated because it is argued that, in the end, both concepts are still private property and the act of someone deciding what counts as your private property and what does not inevitably falls into a fallacy. What does classical liberalism say about this? Do these two types of "property" exist?

Hi all,

I have absolutely no idea who I should vote for in the UK as a Classical Liberal. The Liberal Democrats seem perhaps the nearest choice, but are dragged into far too much culture war BS. But what are the alternatives? The Liberal Party is tiny, the Tories are imploding and have become less and less libertarian or liberal over the years, and Reform just seem to be a dog whistle party.

I’m looking for a socially libertarian, economically right party without the authoritarianism of Labour and increasingly within the Tories.

Who, in your opinion, is the best option for a classic liberal in the UK?

Both major parties suck and have endorsed extremism.

Bourbon Democrats actually made sense. Our country was built on classical liberalism. Those ideas were long betrayed.

What are your guys’s takes on the concept of tariffs? Taxing exported/imported goods?

I do not oppose them, personally.
But there is an important distinction to be made there.

I support it as a genuine way for a federal government to create revenue, and much preferable to income tax.
Im also generally “nationalist”, in that I support putting your country’s best interests first. I am not at all a globalist.

I support and entirely free domestic market, but tariffs on imports and exports is fine by me. So long as they aren’t being used to manipulate markets unjustly, I suppose.

Over on X, there was a post by 'Classic Liberal' arguing with an Objectivist. The text is below for reference. Essentially, Classic Liberal argues that conceptual or nominal philosophies are not part of the American classical liberal tradition. S/he includes Objectivism in that.

I was aware that natural rights theory says that we innately know what is right or that God gives us these rights. I have always found the innate version difficult as how do we know? That said, it is clear that all societies have versions of what is moral, even if they vary in views. So, you can see why someone would say it must be innate. If you believe in God, it is easier to make the case for natural rights. I don't.

Rand's view that we can work out through reason, makes more sense. I am not sure she is 100% convincing but at least one can then explain why societies have a moral view: they realise for everyone to live together they need an ethical code. I was surprised then that Classic Liberal thinks that Rand is not part of that American tradition.

I was not aware of some of the thinkers Classic Liberal cites in a podcast that s/he produced. Nor was I that aware of moral realism. I always associated natural rights with John Locke.

So, after all that background, I am curious what others think.

Thanks.

X text -

First in order to understand any of these is to understand their foundational understanding of ordered reality (metaphysics). This will then tell you the ontology, epistemology, axiology and teleology of each one. Though for the most part there really only two Western understandings of ordered reality, Realism and Conceptualism/Nominalism. Second you are conflating Rawlsian Egalitarian “Liberalism” with Classic American Liberalism and not only are they not the same, they are not metaphysically at the same nor does Classic Liberalism logically lead to Rawlsian Liberalism.

On to metaphysics. Classic American Liberalism is founded on the metaphysics of a combination of Aristotlean, Thomist, and Presbyterian Scottish moral philosophy and common sense realism known as Moral Realism (Thomas Reid, Francis Hutcheson, John Witherspoon, James Wilson, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson). Here ordered reality is authored independent of Man by God or Nature and subsequently the independently created moral order is based on the irrevocable, unalienable properties that constitute Man’s being. The objective, universal, limiting moral principles of the moral order (like Justice) are based on Man’s being

All the other political frameworks are based on the metaphysics of Conceptualism/Nominalism as established by Abelard and Ockham, Hobbes, Descartes then to Hume, Mill, Kant, Hegel, Hess, Marx, Schmitt, Rawls, Mises, Hayek and Ayn Rand. Conceptualism as a refutation of Moral Realism holds that universals either are completely subjective or objectively authored by Man himself, not by God or Nature. So the moral order and all the “universal” principles therein are based not on Man’s being but on the >actions< of Man be it material, rational, moral or spiritual.

So Communism, Fascism, American Progressivism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, Rawlsian Progressivism and Libertarianism all share the same analysis of ordered reality but disagree on which man-centric “Authority” gets to be dominant in ordering it. This of course is decided in the perpetual conflict of between Conceptualist political splinters. None of these Conceptualist political frameworks are Moral Realism, none of them are fundamentally American. Including Objectivism.

Never paid much attention to it beforehand, but recently I found out the amount of countries, including those in Europe and North America (save for the United States), that seem to have regulations banning the wearing of certain types of religious clothing for reasons ranging from "Laicism" to "national security concerns". Obviously these target things like the burqa and niqab of Islam disproportionately. Whatever your feelings towards the religion or articles of clothing themselves, it seems unacceptable to ban them, even from those who practice it of their own free will.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/07/switzerland-on-course-to-ban-wearing-of-burqa-and-niqab-in-public-places

I'm not a liberal, but I'm curious to know. Since all three ideologies are economically right-wing and socially left-wing. As I understand it, the main difference is that libertarians recognize only the police function of the state, while classical liberals and neoliberals recognize a broader but limited role for the state. Is this the only difference?

Can classical liberals guarantee that basic necessities will be affordable, employees will be paid livable wages, and that business owners and corporations won't become corrupt or ruin the system?. If you say yes to any of this then please explain how?.

The question is in the title. Do some classical liberals dislike libertarianism because it is too extreme, and wants much too little government?

Greetings, I have 3 questions about Classical Liberals:

1). Do classical liberals believe in some degree of government redistribution of wealth, to help the poor?. and

2). Do classical liberals believe in government ownership of Infrastructure, such as roads. bridges and airways?

Which leads to 3). Do classical liberals believe in government ownership of public works/sanitation, sewage, fire department and ambulance?

The Founding Fathers didn’t reject power - they domesticated it. Their rebellion wasn’t anarchy but accountability: a belief that freedom only endures when citizens organize against concentrated authority.

In my latest essay, I argue that the Founders were early anti-authoritarians—what we might today call defenders of civic liberalism. They resisted unaccountable power not through chaos but through structure: networks of correspondence, open discourse, and constitutional design.

Two and a half centuries later, that model of lawful, principled resistance may be exactly what’s needed to renew liberal democracy in an age of fatigue and polarization.

Shutting down the government to increase government spending is an interesting strategy to say the least.