NationStates Jolt Archive

Can ANYONE give me the definition of Classic Liberalism? I mean some of these things confuse the short-term memory of modern liberals.

Can ANYONE give me the definition of Classic Liberalism? I mean some of these things confuse the short-term memory of modern liberals.

I think it means a minimal, democratic government which promotes the greatest degree of personal freedom.

Can ANYONE give me the definition of Classic Liberalism? I mean some of these things confuse the short-term memory of modern liberals.
Are you suggesting the liberals are stupid?

Classic liberalism favours liberal social and economic policy. This means that there is little social welfare, corporate regulation, or government enforcement of morality. Similar to what is called "Libertarianism" in America now.

Classic liberalism favours liberal social and economic policy. This means that there is little social welfare, corporate regulation, or government enforcement of morality. Similar to what is called "Libertarianism" in America now.
As a libertarian I can say that you are correct

so classic liberalism is like contemporary libertarianism? contemorary liberalism is authoritarian government in economic and social welfare issues, while still promoting freedom of civil and (democratic) political liberties. or at least thats what i've been lead to think... correct?

so classic liberalism is like contemporary libertarianism? contemorary liberalism is authoritarian government in economic and social welfare issues, while still promoting freedom of civil and (democratic) political liberties. or at least thats what i've been lead to think... correct?

No Classic Liberalism is much more like of the newer Conservative views on government. Following less regultaion and less bureacracy(sp?).

I was not saying liberals were stupid. It just seems that most of the time when in political discussions with liberals stupid sayings and my moral outlook are called into question not the facts and effects of those facts.

so classic liberalism is like contemporary libertarianism? contemorary liberalism is authoritarian government in economic and social welfare issues, while still promoting freedom of civil and (democratic) political liberties. or at least thats what i've been lead to think... correct?

Social welfare policies aren't Authoritarian.

so classic liberalism is like contemporary libertarianism? contemorary liberalism is authoritarian government in economic and social welfare issues, while still promoting freedom of civil and (democratic) political liberties. or at least thats what i've been lead to think... correct?

that is correct.

Social welfare policies aren't Authoritarian.

In that case, how can I choose not to participate? (either as giver or taker)

If I don't have a choice about it, they are authoritarian.

Social welfare policies aren't Authoritarian.
Economically, yes they are - the government authority (root word of authoritarianism) creates it.

A modern liberal doesnt need to be a classic liberal, just to let you know...

In that case, how can I choose not to participate? (either as giver or taker)

If I don't have a choice about it, they are authoritarian.

You people are silly. If people in a democratic society decide that the government should provide a service for the common good then their is nothing authotarian about it. If you don't like it you can try to change the law. A lot of countries provide very generous social services and aren't the slightest bit authoritarian. Look at Iceland, they are quite socialistish and they don't even have a military.

What do you mean by "modern liberals"?

The word 'liberal' is a very difficult one in English. Much of the confusion stems from the colloquial American usage which basically equates to what might be referred to as a 'social democrat' elsewhere. Outside the US, the term 'liberal,' might refer to someone who favours minimal governmental intervention in the economy (eg. neo-liberal economics), to someone who is advocating greater personal freedoms (eg. liberalisation of drug laws). Witness the usage of the terms in politcal parties, the Liberal Democrats in the UK (non-working class social democrats), or the Liberal Party in Australia (who are the equivalent of the Republicans in the US or the Conservatives in the UK). Or consider the meaning of 'most liberal state' in Nation States rankings.

In languages other than English, 'liberal' (or its equivalent) almost invariably denotes an economic liberal, ie. someone who promotes free markets and restricts the role of the state. On occasion this causes the most atrocious confusion when Europeans and Americans are debating politics in international fora, such as this one.

One way to think around this confusion is to consider Classical Liberalism (Th. Jefferson Liberalism), to be comprised of two legs, Economic Liberalism and Social Liberalism. The former advocates the freedom of the market, while the latter advocates personal freedoms.

As a matter of practical politics Social and Economic Liberalism have almost always become separated from each other. Thus those (Conservatives) who most ardently champion the rights or markets are usually socially conservative, while those (Social Democrats) who favour increasing personal liberties (eg, pro-choice, pro gay, pro decriminalisation, anti capital punishment, etc.) tend to favour heavy government intervention in economic matters. In the US the unmarked case of 'liberal' was attached to Social Liberals, and from there has come to be used of people seeking to promote various issued via the State (even if they are no longer truely Social Liberal, eg. Worfian restrictions of speech, aka politcal correctness), in most of the rest of the world the unmarked case refers to Economic Liberals.

As has been pointed out above, in the US the term 'Libertarian' has been used to designate a particularly purist form of Classical Liberalism. I've also seen this lead to international confusion, as elsewhere 'Libertarian' can be used to designate a type of communist favouring personal freedom. Ouch!

So when you bemoan the "modern liberals" lack of adherence to the precepts of Classical Liberalism, what are you saying? Are you wondering why Social Liberals want to tax, or why Economic Liberals want to legislate your sexual activities?

You people are silly. If people in a democratic society decide that the government should provide a service for the common good then their is nothing authotarian about it. If you don't like it you can try to change the law. A lot of countries provide very generous social services and aren't the slightest bit authoritarian. Look at Iceland, they are quite socialistish and they don't even have a military.
Here's the thing : There's more to authoritarianism than just social issues. Forcing people, against their will, to pay for social programs is authoritarian.

Social welfare policies aren't Authoritarian.
they are authoritarian in the sense that the government is getting involved - a case of "big government" (as opposed to libertarian 'small government') - in wealth redistribution and social equity.


edit: though progressive tax policies (higher taxes for the rich than the poor) is not intrinsically a social welfare policy, nor is this direct government intervention in an authoritarian way. However this directly links to, and funds the direct or 'real' social welfare policies (such as the NHS in the UK for example). thus the issue is far from black-and-white.

If people in a democratic society decide that the government should provide a service for the common good then their is nothing authotarian about it.

Authoritarian=state authority takes precedence over individual freedom
Democratic=decisions are made by a majority vote of the people

You will see that the two are not opposites. The people can, by majority vote, decide to take away individual freedoms. That is both democratic and authoritarian.

There's more to authoritarianism than just social issues. Forcing people, against their will, to pay for social programs is authoritarian.

I'm not sure you really read his post. His point was that if We The People vote to tell the government we want them to spend our taxes on social welfare, then it is not authoritarian. 'Majoritarian' maybe.

I'm not sure you really read his post. His point was that if We The People vote to tell the government we want them to spend our taxes on social welfare, then it is not authoritarian. 'Majoritarian' maybe.
But he's wrong. The majority of the people can vote to ban gay marriage, enforce segregation, make national ID cards mandatory, and establish 7 PM curfews. As Cassini said, democracy and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure you really read his post. His point was that if We The People vote to tell the government we want them to spend our taxes on social welfare, then it is not authoritarian. 'Majoritarian' maybe.
but the fact is that the government, as an entity, is being authoritarian simply because it is - with majority consent or not - taking individual freedoms away from its people.

You will see that the two are not opposites. The people can, by majority vote, decide to take away individual freedoms. That is both democratic and authoritarian.

Well to me an "authoritarian government" strongly implies not right to vote. Yes, sure a majority vote can (and does) take away individual freedoms, but this could (would) happen even in the absence of a government as we know it. Consider for instance replacing our parliaments with a net-based referrendum system. The negative impact upon individual freedoms would be too frightening to imagine, but what sense does it make here to talk of authoritarian government?

Well to me an "authoritarian government" strongly implies not right to vote.
surely that would be something of a totalitarian government? or, it seems you are implying, that an authoritarian government cannot be democratic.

so classic liberalism is like contemporary libertarianism? contemorary liberalism is authoritarian government in economic and social welfare issues, while still promoting freedom of civil and (democratic) political liberties. or at least thats what i've been lead to think... correct?
The word "liberal" is used in America to mean, roughly "democratic socialist" - someone who is libertarian on social/political issues, but left-wing on economics. This [incorrect] usage of the word liberal seems to be pervading the entire world now also.

Witness the usage of the terms in politcal parties, the Liberal Democrats in the UK (non-working class social democrats),
The UK Lib Dems have free-market roots, but they have moved leftward in reaction to Labour's sudden jump to the right about 10-15 years ago.

(Yes, I'm referring to Blair's "New Labour", aka "Not Labour")

The word "liberal" is used in America to mean, roughly "democratic socialist" - someone who is libertarian on social/political issues, but left-wing on economics. This [incorrect] usage of the word liberal seems to be pervading the entire world now also.

hold on... isn't this why there is a distinction between 'modern' and 'classical' liberal? the modern terminology is this "incorrect" version, while the classic liberalism seems to embody both sides of this arguement (and more)?

Social welfare policies aren't Authoritarian.
Yes they are, you are taking money away from the people who earn it and giving it to those who didn't

surely that would be something of a totalitarian government?
Nope 'totalitarian' would be either a cold-war propaganda term used to equate opposites (ie fascism and communism) or at best it refers to an attempt to control to totality of human experience. Ie. a goverment which seeks to control every facet of existence. Sure authoritarian governments tend towards totalitarianims, but I would argue (perhaps controversially) that the market can also be totalitarian. This would happen, for instance, if all human activity were reduced to profit seeking, eg. if we were unable to find alternative (read tax) means to fund Opera, since the market only wants Britney Spears, would be totalitarian. Note, I don't really enjoy Opera, but I do enjoy cultural diversity, (and am happy to have my taxes spent on it.)

I accept that your definition of authoritarianism is tenable, if somewhat polemic. However when a phrase such as "authoritarian state," is used we can usually read this as implying that the individual freedom to vote has been among the first to be erroded.

This [incorrect] usage of the word liberal
Given that the large majority of English speakers reside in the US, aren't you being rather authoritarian in labeling their usage "incorrect"? :D

Liberalism means a balence between individual freedom and group responsibility. The classical philosophers did not define liberalism as the god-given right to engage in dishonest speculation, nor the right to not give of oneself when it came to protecting or furthering the public interest.

People who equate classical liberalism with libertarianism are illegitemate children of the age of enlightenment.

I accept that your definition of authoritarianism is tenable, if somewhat polemic. However when a phrase such as "authoritarian state," is used we can usually read this as implying that the individual freedom to vote has been among the first to be erroded.
well i simply do not agree with that particular assumption - indeed i believe your arguement to be the polemic one! just because the people can democratically decide to concede certain freedoms to the state (and thus the state to become more authoritarian, by my definiton), this does not mean that the state will automatically turn on its people and take away their right to choose their leaders. that is a value judgement though and just my opinion - im not sure if any agreement can be reached here ;)
note that we, by living in society, have already given much in the way of personal or natural freedoms to the state; the arguements of Locke and Rousseau (this part of which I agree with). Thus where is the boundary between the freedoms that must be surrendered to government in order to provide for a social contract and to live in society, and this notion of an authoritarian state? again a value judgement, but an interesting one :)

however i agree with the rest of your post... although the 'totalitarianism' of the market you describe could be argued to simply be the fair or just outcome, as if nobody wants to watch Opera then Opera should not be supplied. it is state authoritarianism that puts opera back onto your tv through taxes to encourage cultural diversification (assuming i understand your arguement and the way Opera is funded correctly; im not american)

If I understand the point regarding the debate regarding what is and is not an authoritarian government I would have to agree with the author who infers that various types of governments can be authortarian in nature. For example, in the case of the U.S. the government has taken away the rights of citizens, illegally in some cases, even though it is a democratic republic. (references the suspension of the writ of habeous corpus at various times, internment of Americans during World War 2, etc.)

Thus, authoritarian acts can be taken by very different types of governments. As an aside, the comment that totalitarianism reflects a Cold War propaganda term is not accurate. Totalitarian forms of government have been around long before the Cold War.

Pure Metal:
i believe your arguement to be the polemic one
What am I polemicising against?

Let me explain why I consider your use polemic. When people speak of a authoritarian state the first thing that comes into my mind is Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. I'm not alone in this and you know it. Indeed this is why you employ the term, it is a "boo-word." When you say that government funded High Schools are an example of authoritarian government, you are basically saying more than the government collects taxes and funds education. You are associating the actions of that particular government with the actions of authoritarian governments, in the sense that most of use understand these.

As the old dictum runs: There are only two certainties in life. Death and Taxes.. The fact that every government collects taxes renders the term 'authoriarian government' (in your usage of authoritarian) tautologous. By so overextending the use of authoritarian (in relation to goverments) you deprive it of meaning.

Samsonish:
As an aside, the comment that totalitarianism reflects a Cold War propaganda term is not accurate...

Not accurate in what way? The fact is that the word 'totalitarianism' came into use as propaganda tool post WWII. So effective was it that you will still find many people equating fascism and communism. Indeed, while the adjectival form is perhaps of earlier coinage, I would be surprised if the word 'totalitarianism' even existed before the Cold War. Or can you provide me with a number of examples that predate it? (edit: any number apart from zero that is :) )

...Totalitarian forms of government have been around long before the Cold War.
Putting aside you use of the word in question (which is a particularly sloppy form of question begging), that statement simply lacks relevance.

Pure Metal:

What am I polemicising against?

Let me explain why I consider your use polemic. When people speak of a authoritarian state the first thing that comes into my mind is Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. I'm not alone in this and you know it. Indeed this is why you employ the term, it is a "boo-word." When you say that government funded High Schools are an example of authoritarian government, you are basically saying more than the government collects taxes and funds education. You are associating the actions of that particular government with the actions of authoritarian governments, in the sense that most of use understand these.

As the old dictum runs: There are only two certainties in life. Death and Taxes.. The fact that every government collects taxes renders the term 'authoriarian government' (in your usage of authoritarian) tautologous. By so overextending the use of authoritarian (in relation to goverments) you deprive it of meaning.
the reason why i said your arguement was the controversial one is simply because it is not what i have been brought up to believe - please do not take offence.
the thing is i do not associate any of these political 'nasties' with the term authoritarian - to me it is just a word to confer a large government that takes an active role in society - particularily economics; as opposed to a typically right-wing (at least here in the uk) or libertarian doctrine of 'small government, big people'. a government that takes taxes, is not necissarily an authoritarian one, and this type of government does not necissarily confer the totalitarian type of government (Hitler, Stalin, etc) that you described. essentially, an authoritarian government will collect higer taxes than a centrist government, and use these to fund the 'big' state - social welfare, pubilc goods, even nationalised industry; but not necissarily interfering with civil and political liberties. to me, totalitarian government is the same big state, with the added functions of taking personal freedoms and using them to extend the state to the people.
that is what i think anyway - maybe this is indeed a polemic arguement (and slightly convoluted cos i just woke up), but it is what i have always thought. essentially, your 'boo word' is "authoritarian", while the word 'totalitarian' is the one that confers all the bad aspects of big government to me.

Yes they are, you are taking money away from the people who earn it and giving it to those who didn't

assumes that people 'earn' the money they receive purely through their own labor. but since the single largest determining factor in how much wealth it is even possible for a person to accumulate is the state of the society they live in (there aren't very many billionaire computer geeks in rwanda), then it is obvious that at least some percentage of the wealth that people earn is due not to their own labor but rather to some set of social factors that existed before them and around them.

Pure Metal:
the reason why i said your arguement was the controversial one is simply because it is not what i have been brought up to believe - please do not take offence.

I'm not sure why you thought I took offence? I didn't. In any case, don't mind my feelings, I can take as good as I give.

Look I'm still sceptical that someone whose education has apparently included reading Locke and Rosseau can be ignorant as to the accepted meaning of 'authoritarian government,' or of its highly pejorative connotations. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you are the victim, rather than the perpetrator, of this (deliberate?) misuse. I'm attaching (in a separate post) some examples of how the word is actually used to help clear up your confusion.


essentially, an authoritarian government will collect higer taxes than a centrist government, and use these to fund the 'big' state - social welfare, pubilc goods, even nationalised industry; but not necissarily interfering with civil and political liberties. to me, totalitarian government is the same big state, with the added functions of taking personal freedoms and using them to extend the state to the people


Actually 'authoritarian' (pertaining to governments) is almost exclusively used in the sense of restrictive of personal, civil and political freedoms, not economic ones. Now it is true that most authoritarian states, for example China, have traditionally run a command economy (hardly surprising), but you need to be clear that the reason China is labelled as authoritarian is not that the government owns factories, but that it runs tanks over demonstrators.

In this regard the examples of the Pinochet's Chile, and Singapore are particularly instructive. Both were (or in the case of Singapore, are) indubitably authoritarian states, but economically extremely "libertarian" (to employ your terminology). These are not (so-called) 'big' governments, though the size of their repressive apparatus is considerable. In practice 'authoritarian' is nearly synonymous with 'un-democratic.'

It's true that Singapore is formally democratic, but it is not effectively so (the PM from 1959-1990 was one Lee Kwan Yew, and since then it has been his son .. you get the picture.) This is a country where you will be publicly flogged for chewing gum, or be arrested for having long hair (as a man). But hey! It's a great place to do business. As a friend of mine who spent some time there said, "You know you're in an authoritarian country when you walk under a bridge in the middle of nowhere and you see sign that says: THANKYOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION!"

maybe this is indeed a polemic arguement
The use is polemic, or at the very least rhetorical, when cognisant of its usual meaning you predicate it to the economic activities government to make the point that the collection of taxes eg. is an attack on personal freedoms ultimatley dependant on the exercise of the coersive apparatus of the state. (Much in the same way my reference to the "totalitarianism of the market" is polemic.) This it seems to me is what Cassini Belt was saying when he referred to the lack of choice involved. Of course the problem with equating 'authoritarian' with 'mandatory' is that it is a slippery slope (as you have seen), all governments, and eventually all private institutions, become infected.

A note about the use examples. Firstly the are (inevitably) selective. I present examples from the mainstream press across the politcal spectrum and across a variety of English language 'jurisdictions.' I've selected based on their pedagogic value, basically cases where there can be no confusion about the meaning. Should you suspect my selections, I invite you to carry out this excercise for yourself. I can honestly say that I encountered no usage such as you endorse. That might be different, of course, had I also searched the libertarian 'press.' To find one there, however, would kinda prove my point though.

Washington Post (US)
Listen To the Russians
In 2002 and 2003 we asked more than 10,000 survey respondents "Which statement do you agree with most? (1) Democracy is always preferable; (2) Authoritarian government is sometimes preferable to democracy; or (3) The form of government does not matter to people like me."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27209-2004Aug23.html>

---

NY Times (US)
Democracy Has the Edge When It Comes to Advancing Growth
... in the past couple of decades democracy has taken it on the chin in certain economic circles. Many largely authoritarian developing economies, like South Korea, Singapore, Chile and China, grew rapidly while democratic developing nations like India did not fare as well.
<http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/columns/
041300econ-scene.html>

---

Fox News (US)
Results Show Indonesian Ex-General Ahead
The elections were largely free of violence and accusations of fraud, offering further evidence that democracy can prosper in the Muslim world, which is largely ruled by authoritarian regimes.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132995,00.html>

---

The Guardian (UK)
An authoritarian state is in the process of construction
Without a single terrorist attack in Britain, our liberties are being removed ... The news that M15 is to increase its numbers by a thousand is merely the latest instance of David Blunkett's rampant authoritarianism.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1153873,00.html>

---

Daily Telegraph (UK)
Look back at Weimar – and start to worry about Russia
... in the wake of Germany's humiliating defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic suffered hyperinflation, an illusory boom, a slump and then, starting in 1930, a slide into authoritarian rule, culminating in 1933 with Hitler's appointment as chancellor.
<http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/
01/01/do0101.xml>

---

Western Mail & South Wales Echo (UK)
No going back on ID cards - Clarke
As early as Monday, Mr Clarke will face the Commons for the second reading of the Identity Cards Bill. Within an hour of his appointment, he made clear he would not row back from Mr Blunkett's agenda, which has been branded authoritarian by civil liberties campaigners.
<http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/
tm_objectid=14983756&method=full&siteid=50082
&headline=no-going-back-on-id-cards---clarke-name_page.html>

---

Sydney Morning Herald (AU)
Regimes copy China and Cuba to control internet
Authoritarian regimes, emulating China and Cuba, can and do control their citizens' internet use, often to keep themselves in power, a study has found. The study by scholars at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggests that authoritarian and semi-authoritarian governments keep a close grip on the internet by limiting access or filtering content.
<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725717836.html>
---

The Australian (AU)
Judge slams building taskforce
THE Howard Government will press ahead with measures to crack down on a militant construction union, despite a court ruling that the investigative powers granted to its building industry watchdog are more suited to an authoritarian state.
<http://stage.theaustralian.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5744,11067120%255E25658,00.html>

---