Is it correct to say Libertarianism = Classic Liberalism?

[Catatonic]

I'm having a discussion with a guy that claims classic liberalism is superior to libertarianism. My admittedly incomplete understanding of the two, in a general sense, is that libertarianism is simply what we call classic liberalism today because 'liberal' has been hijacked by statists.

Now, I know that as a working philosophy, libertarianism has evolved in some ways from classical liberalism. From what I can gather, this is more or less because when the idea of liberalism was new, it obviously had a lot of contradictions which it took criticism for, as is natural with any new idea. Libertarianism may be more refined, and therefor different in some ways, but the basis of the idea remains the same.

This is of course without saying that there are many different takes on the way libertarianism should be implemented.

Am I correct or am I way off base here?

[Mini-Me]

I'm having a discussion with a guy that claims classic liberalism is superior to libertarianism. My admittedly incomplete understanding of the two, in a general sense, is that libertarianism is simply what we call classic liberalism today because 'liberal' has been hijacked by statists.

Now, I know that as a working philosophy, libertarianism has evolved in some ways from classical liberalism. From what I can gather, this is more or less because when the idea of liberalism was new, it obviously had a lot of contradictions which it took criticism for, as is natural with any new idea. Libertarianism may be more refined, and therefor different in some ways, but the basis of the idea remains the same.

This is of course without saying that there are many different takes on the way libertarianism should be implemented.

Am I correct or am I way off base here?

I was going to post a slight correction when I saw the title alone, but your message body cleared up the question, and you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Libertarianism emerged from classical liberalism, and the two positions are still very close, relative to all other major political positions. The less extreme libertarians among us could perhaps be better described as classical liberals even today. Social welfare liberals also trace their roots back to classical liberalism, but their evolution of thought ended up carrying them extremely far from classical liberalism and straight into statist candyland.

[brandon]

I try to stay away from political labels and classifications to begin with. If for no other reason, their definitions usually vary and are constantly changing.

[South Park Fan]

You are essentially correct. Libertarian is refined liberalism, but still truer to liberalism than any of its other succesor ideologies.

[Catatonic]

I try to stay away from political labels and classifications to begin with. If for no other reason, their definitions usually vary and are constantly changing.

I agree, but when someone makes a post bashing libertarianism in favor of classic liberalism, I can't help but scratch my head and even wonder if I'm missing something :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is essentially the same. I mean, ok, Molinari is considered a Radical liberal, and Bastiat not too far behind. The same classification is used for libertarians. You have the radical libertarians (Rothbard, vis a vis, Molinari -- Market-Anarchists), and then just libertarians (Your Nozick's and Misesians). Libertarianism is just a tad bit more refined, but not much.

[malkusm]

From the Foreword to the Third Edition of Human Action by Ludwig von Mises:


"I employ the term 'liberal' in the sense attached to it everywhere in the nineteenth century and still today in the countries of continental Europe. This usage is imperative because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals from slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage."

If the bold isn't pretty damn close to the definition of modern libertarianism...then I don't know what is. :)

[Catatonic]

So further along in the discussion, someone posted a link to 'neo libertarianism' which I guess is libertarianism that supports military interventionism. I said this sounds more like neo cons claiming to be libertarians and was told that I have a narrow sighted view of libertarianism that seems to be relegated only to our founding fathers.

This was my response, I don't think there will be many replies:

Lets go a step further and see if we can figure out how foreign adventures would have to work in a libertarian/classic liberal system.

First of all, you can't force the public to support the war financially. This means people who have a real problem with the war can legally avoid whatever tax streams are funding it. It also means the military is much smaller, so it is going to be more difficult to justify sacraficing national defense for these adventures.

Does this make sense now? Its not about a position on this policy or that policy, interventionism vs non interventionism, its about VOLUNTEERISM and a government who's only role is to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. In the scenario described above, how many of the wars we've entered into in the last 100 years would have actually seen American soldiers dieing in them?

It is conceivable that we would still have military interventionism going on, but ONLY to the extent that the people are willing to support it, financially and otherwise.

[Imperial]

For academic discussion, sure classical liberalism is similar to but slightly distinct from libertarianism.

However, for the vast majority of people libertarian = classical liberal, as the minor distinctions aren't as big of a deal in the real world.

Thus, I lean more classically liberal but I still call myself a libertarian to others.

[Catatonic]

For academic discussion, sure classical liberalism is similar to but slightly distinct from libertarianism.

However, for the vast majority of people libertarian = classical liberal, as the minor distinctions aren't as big of a deal in the real world.

Thus, I lean more classically liberal but I still call myself a libertarian to others.

I would say the guy I'm debating with is probably a classic liberal, or at least a left leaning libertarian, whereas I tend to be a little more conservative. He says I'm too idealistic and that his 'pragmatism' is the better way to go. So to him it probably seems like there's a huge gap between us even though we both agree on most things.

Hopefully I've helped him understand that in the grand scheme of things, the average Palin voting GOP-head or kool-aid drinking Obama-bot isn't going to see any difference between us.

[Vessol]

How people have tried to put Libertarianism as a right-wing ideology is beyond me, it's clearly a mix of the two.

[Andrew-Austin]

People use the terms in different ways, just ask him to define the two and clear out your differences and then debate ideas.

Even just on this board, people can use / think of the terms libertarianism and conservatism very differently.

[Catatonic]

How people have tried to put Libertarianism as a right-wing ideology is beyond me, it's clearly a mix of the two.

There are too many republicans runing around calling themselves libertarians.

[malkusm]

How people have tried to put Libertarianism as a right-wing ideology is beyond me, it's clearly a mix of the two.

In my opinion, most libertarians identify more with the right because taxation is seen as the "fuel on the fire" for the entire leviathan of government -- cut off the source of money to the beast, and they will be forced to either cut back on spending and programs, or to inflate the currency to the point where their own power will be destroyed. There's no issue as central to the role of government as that of taxation, especially on the left -- because, consistently, what does the left care about in this country other than expanding government in any aspect they can?