Leading thinkers of classical liberalism

[Gaius1981]

I'd be very interested in seeing which of the following leading thinkers of classical liberalism are held in the highest regard on this forum.

[Xenophage]

Of the thinkers listed, Rand.

Of the multitude not listed, Heinlein :)

[Young Paleocon]

I would say Mises, his "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality", essays on the business cycle and Theory of Money and Credit all had a dramatic impact on me. However, I read Hayek's Road to Serfdom first and that opened me up to the helplessness and ineptitude of governments when they meddle in markets. So Mises then Hayek.

[Bradley in DC]

What about Acton, McAuley, Dewey, Mill, et al.?

[Young Paleocon]

Sowell, Menger, Boehm-Bawerk, Wieser, Saye, Bastiat?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm a big fan of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" and much of T. Jefferson's stuff. Rothbard, et. al. are great too. :)

[Truth Warrior]

What Is Classical Liberalism?
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
December 20, 2005http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
by John C. Goodman 1 (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/20051220-special.html#footnotes)

http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gifPrior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/20051220-special.html (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/20051220-special.html)

[RevolutionSD]

For me it was Stefan Molyneux www.freedomainradio.com

[heavenlyboy34]

What Is Classical Liberalism?
http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
December 20, 2005http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gif
by John C. Goodman 1 (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/20051220-special.html#footnotes)

http://www.ncpa.org/images/1pix.gifPrior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/20051220-special.html (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/20051220-special.html)

If the "pro-archists" come in here and see that, they're going to have a tizzy fit! ;):D

[Gaius1981]

Sorry for leaving out a considerable amount of thinkers, but I tried to narrow it down to the absolute greatest and most influential minds. Of course, not everyone may agree with my selection... and I'm on the fence about Friedman. :)

[Truth Warrior]

If the "pro-archists" come in here and see that, they're going to have a tizzy fit! ;):D Oh, you mean the STATISTS? :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, you mean the STATISTS? :D

I was trying to be nice, but yep-I mean the STATISTS. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I was trying to be nice, but yep-I mean the STATISTS. ;) Trying to be nice too, STATE worshipers. ;) How about "archists"? :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Trying to be nice too, STATE worshipers. ;) How about "archists"? :D

Hopefully, one of them will come in here soon and tell us what they like to be called. :) Statist and State Worshipers both sound adequate to me. :D;)

[Young Paleocon]

Yea i think if you ditched Friedman and maybe put in Say or Bastiat that would be a better selection.

[Truth Warrior]

Hopefully, one of them will come in here soon and tell us what they like to be called. :) Statist and State Worshipers both sound adequate to me. :D;) I'm growing more fond of "archists" the more I think about it. It's simpler.<IMHO> ;) :D

[Stary Hickory]

I have never read Ayn Rand. So I will withold my vote for now. They are all great thinkers though.

[Xenophage]

Hopefully, one of them will come in here soon and tell us what they like to be called. :) Statist and State Worshipers both sound adequate to me. :D;)

How about, "radical individualist" or "rational egoist"? That seems fitting to me, and in quite a stark contrast to your law of the jungle, might makes right, Darwinist collectivism. :D

[Truth Warrior]

How about, "radical individualist"? That seems fitting to me, and in quite a stark contrast to your law of the jungle, might makes right, Darwinist collectivism.

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

[heavenlyboy34]

How about, "radical individualist"? That seems fitting to me, and in quite a stark contrast to your law of the jungle, might makes right, Darwinist collectivism.

Where are you getting this nonsense of calling me collectivist? You ought to know better by now. :p :rolleyes: I'm clearly a helluva lot more individualist than you, dear archist. If you can't tell the difference between "The law of the jungle" and autarchy, you're more lost than I thought. There's nothing more I can do with you. :( I think a specialist must be called in to help you. Perhaps TW can make a referral?

[Xenophage]

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

You are a lazy replier.

[Xenophage]

Where are you getting this nonsense of calling me collectivist? You ought to know better by now. :p :rolleyes: I'm clearly a helluva lot more individualist than you, dear archist. If you can't tell the difference between "The law of the jungle" and autarchy, you're more lost than I thought. There's nothing more I can do with you. :( I think a specialist must be called in to help you. Perhaps TW can make a referral?

I'm sure he'll post a link soon.

[Xenophage]

Don't call me a Statist :P And no you're not more individualist than I am. I am individualister than thou.

[Xenophage]

I bet poor ol' Milt doesn't get any votes here :(

[Truth Warrior]

You are a lazy replier. It's all some folks warrant and deserve.<IMHO> And yes, I am.

"Work smarter NOT harder." :D

[Xenophage]

It's all some folks warrant and deserve.<IMHO> And yes, I am.

"Work smarter NOT harder." :D

By "some folks" you mean "everybody who doesn't agree with me," right?

[Truth Warrior]

By "some folks" you mean "everybody who doesn't agree with me," right? No. By "some folks" I mean "some folks". Which word is the cause of your confusion?

[Xenophage]

No. By "some folks" I mean "some folks". Which word is the cause of your confusion?

So by "some folks," you really mean "Xenophage" right?

[Truth Warrior]

So by "some folks," you really mean "Xenophage" right?

No. By "some folks" I mean "some folks". Which word is the cause of your confusion?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/folks (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/folks)

[Xenophage]

No. By "some folks" I mean "some folks". Which word is the cause of your confusion?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/folks (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/folks)

So...

by "some folks" you mean...

"pie?"

[Truth Warrior]

So...

by "some folks" you mean...

"pie?"

No. By "some folks" I mean "some folks". Which word is the cause of your confusion?

[Xenophage]

No. By "some folks" I mean "some folks". Which word is the cause of your confusion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOKAEe1Mxcc

[Bruehound]

Didn't John Stuart Mill cross over to the dark side later in his career?

[Truth Warrior]

Didn't John Stuart Mill cross over to the dark side later in his career? I think so, with his defense of Utilitarianism. :(

[Xenophage]

Didn't John Stuart Mill cross over to the dark side later in his career?

"On Liberty" is Utilitarian defense of Capitalism.

[Galileo Galilei]

I would vote for James Madison, if he were on the list. Madison has had far more positive influence than anyone else in regards to liberty.

[Kludge]

Ayn Rand initially fortified my belief in libertarianism, but as I was exploring Nihilism (and Nietzsche, who was a self-proclaimed "immoralist"), I started researching Max Stirner (actually I was pointed to Max Stirner by Keiji Nishianti, who WizardWatson pointed me to) who makes quite a solid philosophical case for anarchy and egoism.

On a related note, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" just arrived at my door :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Ayn Rand initially fortified my belief in libertarianism, but as I was exploring Nihilism (and Nietzsche, who was a self-proclaimed "immoralist"), I started researching Max Stirner (actually I was pointed to Max Stirner by Keiji Nishianti, who WizardWatson pointed me to) who makes quite a solid philosophical case for anarchy and egoism.

On a related note, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" just arrived at my door :)

Thank you for making a useful post, douchebag. :):D

[Crash Martinez]

I'd say Rothbard, mainly via Lew Rockwell.

But yeah, Bastiat should definitely be on that list, as well as Henry Hazlitt.