Any modern day classical liberals?

[Free Bird]

Above anything, I consider myself that. Are there any elected officials in this day and age who are classical liberals?

[© tweed]

Above anything, I consider myself that. Are there any elected officials in this day and age who are classical liberals?

what is the point?  19th century liberals were mostly concerned with wresting control away from the Church and from monarchy.

[badgate]

Above anything, I consider myself that. Are there any elected officials in this day and age who are classical liberals?

what is the point?  19th century liberals were mostly concerned with wresting control away from the Church and from monarchy.

A worthy cause.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

To the internet, on the term 'classical liberal':

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

lol

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It isn't 1913 anymore.

[politicus]

To the internet, on the term 'classical liberal':

I agree, but this would be less of a cheap shot if you provided your own definition of it.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

To the internet, on the term 'classical liberal':

I agree, but this would be less of a cheap shot if you provided your own definition of it.

Classical liberals don't exist in the Year of Our Lord 2015.

[Murica!]

First tell us what you mean by that, because there were many different strains of what could be called Classical Liberalism(such as Thomas Paine style proto-socialists and what is now the right libertarian movement)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Some historical flaws on classically liberal ideology that no modern has:
1. Some like Jefferson didn't want any government backing to develop the economy into many industries. They were fine with the entirely agrarian set up. And I don't mean even as much interference as some Asian countries give today. Just any. He caved a bit outside of the purist ideology to have a successful presidency.

2. I really hope one doesn't have to support the gold standard to fit the narrow definition because in a changed economy, classically liberal ideas should evolve.

3. A lot of the Malthusian backed beliefs are astonishingly wrong. First, population increases are usually wonderful, and humanity has not remained eternally poor. I dont know how that was ever part of the ideology. Also, the individualism is great, but when you take it to the n-th degree so that you can't acknowledge people can produce more putting minds and labor together, then you might want to use some good old reasoning that you pove.

That's just a start to the criticism, but if you believe the this line of thought from some of the greatest thinkers of all-time can evolve, then you can still claim it as your tradition - most probably anyone with libertarian leanings will try to. Just don't be searching for purists. No one can get elected using such a narrow lens. I doubt anyone would publicly vouch for repeal of most Progressive Era reforms. In a right wing utopia where you are starting with near perfect income equality and education possibly but what's the point of discussing that?

I'd assume what we are looking for is ultimately just someone influenced by Hayek that is supportive of civil liberties.

[politicus]

To the internet, on the term 'classical liberal':

I agree, but this would be less of a cheap shot if you provided your own definition of it.

Classical liberals don't exist in the Year of Our Lord 2015.

Not relevant to my post.

[Free Bird]

Some historical flaws on classically liberal ideology that no modern has:
1. Some like Jefferson didn't want any government backing to develop the economy into many industries. They were fine with the entirely agrarian set up. And I don't mean even as much interference as some Asian countries give today. Just any. He caved a bit outside of the purist ideology to have a successful presidency.

2. I really hope one doesn't have to support the gold standard to fit the narrow definition because in a changed economy, classically liberal ideas should evolve.

3. A lot of the Malthusian backed beliefs are astonishingly wrong. First, population increases are usually wonderful, and humanity has not remained eternally poor. I dont know how that was ever part of the ideology. Also, the individualism is great, but when you take it to the n-th degree so that you can't acknowledge people can produce more putting minds and labor together, then you might want to use some good old reasoning that you pove.

That's just a start to the criticism, but if you believe the this line of thought from some of the greatest thinkers of all-time can evolve, then you can still claim it as your tradition - most probably anyone with libertarian leanings will try to. Just don't be searching for purists. No one can get elected using such a narrow lens. I doubt anyone would publicly vouch for repeal of most Progressive Era reforms. In a right wing utopia where you are starting with near perfect income equality and education possibly but what's the point of discussing that?

I'd assume what we are looking for is ultimately just someone influenced by Hayek that is supportive of civil liberties.

Basically

[politicus]

The term may be silly, but it exists because there is a lack of a good label for people who are not conservatives on social issues and liberal on civil rights issues, but still economically right wing. Also the fact that Liberal as a label is ruined in the US by its association with interventionist economic policies and a relatively high tax level (what a European would call Social Liberalism).

Libertarian has an extremist ring to it and it sounds a bit silly for a European. It seems to work fine for Americans.

In continental Europe versions of economically liberal or business liberal works fine in various languages since social issues are less of a battle field, but those terms seems not to be used much in English and would be useless in an American context. It is generally understood that a person identifying as economically liberal is just more pro-free market/low taxes than a social liberal, but still in favour of strong civil rights protection (but not necessarily liberal on all social issues).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Hawk, I don't know how much you read on the IE board, but do any of these parties strike your fancy?

- The D66 of the Netherlands
- The FDP of Germany
- The Liberal Alliance of Denmark
- ACT of New Zealand

(unrelated, the only self-described "libertarian" parties (that I can name off the top of my head) that has achieved national representation is the Lib Dems of Australia and the Libertarians in Costa Rica, of all places)

[King]

I'm a classic day modern liberal.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ah, nostalgia for the 19th century...(only thing missing is the promotion of scientific racism and the obsession with the price of gold and.....oh.)

It's 2015?

[politicus]

Hawk, I don't know how much you read on the IE board, but do any of these parties strike your fancy?

- The D66 of the Netherlands
- The FDP of Germany
- The Liberal Alliance of Denmark
- ACT of New Zealand

(unrelated, the only self-described "libertarian" parties (that I can name off the top of my head) that has achieved national representation is the Lib Dems of Australia and the Libertarians in Costa Rica, of all places)

Liberal Alliance actually claims the term libertarianism is superfluous because it is identical to what liberalism means in Danish and a guy like Ron Paul is described by Danish media as ultraliberal, so you can see this whole discussion is a bit alien to some of us continentals.

Classical Liberal seems mostly to be an attempt to use the modern continental European definition of (non-Social Liberal) liberalism in English by people who do not identify with the term Libertarianism for various reasons.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not too sure about the Liberal Alliance, but I think we can distinguish between the classical liberal parties of Europe like FDP and US-style Libertarians. The former are more establishment friendly pro-business parties who drain their support from the upper-middle class; while the Paul movement (as I see it) is much younger, disparate and anti-establishmentary.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Above anything, I consider myself that. Are there any elected officials in this day and age who are classical liberals?

what is the point?  19th century liberals were mostly concerned with wresting control away from the Church and from monarchy.

FWIW, there are still some countries (like in the Middle East) where this is still relevant, although you'd have a tough time finding any parties or figures there that would be classified as "classical liberal". Probably the last "liberal" party in this sense was the Democratic Party in South Africa during apartheid, (if we consider opposing apartheid to be a then contemporary equivalent to opposing the aristocracy).

[politicus]

I'm not too sure about the Liberal Alliance, but I think we can distinguish between the classical liberal parties of Europe like FDP and US-style Libertarians. The former are more establishment friendly pro-business parties who drain their support from the upper-middle class; while the Paul movement (as I see it) is much younger, disparate and anti-establishmentary.

Yes, but the actual policy content is mostly quite similar if you weed out the many parties (and factions of parties) that are de facto just Conservatives in anything but name. Moderate Libertarian and Classical Liberal seems to cover identical ideologies. It is just that Libertarianism is connected with being radical, so a lot of people seem reluctant to self identify as a Moderate Libertarian.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's worth noting there are certain aspects of Paulism that simply don't work outside a US context, such as the anti-Federal Reserve stuff (yes other countries might have an equivalent but it's still not an apples to apples comparison) or the extreme strict interpretation of the Constitution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No and there weren't any in the 19th century either.

[politicus]

No and there weren't any in the 19th century either.

As enigmatic as ever,

[All Along The Watchtower]

No and there weren't any in the 19th century either.

But there were liberals...I mean, Liberals.

[Deus Naturae]

No and there weren't any in the 19th century either.

That's blatantly false. Richard Cobden, Herbert Spencer, Eugen Richter, Gustave de Molinari, etc. If you're denying that these men were classical liberals then you've just made up your own definition.