Tfw classical liberalism has yet to ever be proven wrong or irrational

What a load of horseshit
Classical liberalism is about as utopian and nonsensical as Marxism.

You forget though that its also the best its ever been. Everything has flaws user.

> has yet to ever be proven wrong or irrational

read das kapital

Whats the best its ever been?

What? In Spain, for instance, it was commies who started shit and it was commies who lost.

Laissez-faire destroys itself because of game theory realities, a very important function of the state is to balance this out

The Republican government wasn't Communist until they were forced to rely on the USSR for support because nobody else would lend them a hand.

If by 'starting shit' you mean 'daring to exist as a democratically elected government' then yes, the Republicans did start shit.

Oh right. I forgot that the Francoists were the only third-position regime to ever take power. If any others did, it certainly didn't result in them starting a bunch of massively disastrous wars that wound up utterly destroying their countries.

>but its literally responsible for half the shit ruining western civilization right now.
This new "liberal"/progressive bullshit isn't classical liberalism and a lot of what it actually is, is cultural marxism

It's literally liberalism.

And what you call cultural marxism is just a cultural process that started with global late capitalism.

Infrastructure shaping superstructure, you know

Its the social side of liberalism without the economic side

If some of them did and some didn't, then starting wars isn't inherent to such ideology. So what's your point?
They saved the country from comunism. Communists were committing crimes BEFORE the rising.

I meant to reply to , not

Socialism doesn't work.

Get off this board commie retard. Stop polluting the liberal arts with your cancer.

It's definitely a height in the history of political thought, but it's not very well understood, even it's somewhat taken for granted.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that the only fair is laissez-faire after you read Adam Smith. Sure, he likes aspects of markets. But he says things that modern right wing liberals would really disapprove of. He advocating distributing wealth and reducing inequality through taxation of the wealthiest people in a country. This idea is quite harshly criticized by those who call themselves libertarian. Now it doesn't take a socialist or anything to figure out that that's a decent idea. That's why it's an idea that ran through most of the 20th century. But I find that most economic schools that seem to worship him or act as heirs to him aren't interested in that idea at all: some people even call that idea socialism.

The state has a necessary and valuable function. Deal with it

Anyone who shits on tabula rasa has never actually read Locke and doesn't know what he was talking about.

>If some of them did and some didn't, then starting wars isn't inherent to such ideology. So what's your point?

That they've been repeatedly proven wrong. Their system has been by and large an utter failure.

Explain yourself.

>that's a decent idea

Except you'll reduce investment thereby shrinking the economy.

People to the economic left tend to not understand that the rich actually have a limited quantity of money, have to deal with costs, and actually have a role in the economy like everyone else.

I didn't even name any methods of taxation or rates. How would you claim to know the impact on investment that a tax policy Adam Smith would have endorsed would have without knowing the methods and quantities?

Locke never meant to say that there is literally nothing in your mind when you are born - that's a literal reading of the phrase "tabula rasa" being projected on Locke's actual ideas.

All Locke was saying is that all ideas are derived from the senses and that when we are born we have virtually no ideas (he does acknowledge that the womb provides some sensory experience). He does not deny that the mind is born with certain inclinations, instincts, capacities, etc.

It's a very reasonable proposition and is only a product of his attack on nativism.

That sounds pretty reasonable. I'll admit I had only heard about the prospect through Veeky Forums, which meant a one sided take. But the basic concept has always sounded functionally reasonable.

"Taxing the rich" is a colloquialism for a progressive tax.

Yes?

This is excellent. While Locke did believe in the blank slate, he also believed in a kind of human nature and natural human needs and instincts, which is how he derived his theory of natural rights.

This is much different than what the later idea of blank slate would become under Marxist/materialist thought, which turned environment into practically everything.

Marx's Capital don't even talk about socialism or communism. It's a huge book trying to understand capitalism. And by doing that, he proves that, besides the apparence of all the liberalism bullshit like freedom, equality and propriety, the true essence of all this is shown. As he said:

"This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation with each other, is the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal and in the interest of all. "

"On leaving this sphere of simple circulation or of exchange of commodities, which furnishes the “Free-trader Vulgaris” with his views and ideas, and with the standard by which he judges a society based on capital and wages, we think we can perceive a change in the physiognomy of our dramatis personae."

Interestingly, the work that inspired Locke, Ibn Tufail's "The Improvement of Human Reason" was even more at odds with the modern interpretation of tabula rasa: in it, a feral child quickly becomes a paragon early modern philosopher (and a monotheist), which implies there's a universal quality to the Western philosophical tradition.
This is considered impossible by constructivists, structuralists and environmentalists: there's no way a feral child should be able to think like a Westerner without being molded by Western society or at least exposed to Western memes, much less while living like a wildman, no matter how innately gifted he is. But Ibn Tufail believed that one could reach that mode of thinking simply through empiricism/naturalism and formal logic innate to the human mind, much like Locke's "natural" rights.

Of course, I'm fairly sure Ibn Tufail was deluded from too much optimism/chauvinism, and the philosophical discoveries of his culture were not as true and self-evident as he imagined.
It's worth reading, though:
gutenberg.org/ebooks/16831

The cult of human rationality has been so thoroughly shit on that they only survive today by rely on muh AI and muh singularity.

I have no idea what classical liberalism is, but I'll just assume it's European liberalism, as in freedom for people.

The problem is the conflicts between the individual people. Banning smoking in public places is a good liberal policy, most would agree. But it is hard to find exactly where to draw the line, because almost everything you do restricts someone elses freedom to some degree. So if you look very deeply into it, you can find so many arguments. In practice, though, it's usually pretty straight forward.

Another thing is that liberalism is just based on just another axiom, "people should be free". But it's not a given that this should be the ultimate goal. I would argue that "people should be happy" is perhaps an even better goal to work towards, and this goal often comes in conflict with the goal that people should be free.

>if the state doesn't have power over you then nobody does
>this is what liberals actually believe

This and anybody with even modest understanding of economies should know this. Even some of the most vocal defenders of laissez faire capitalism have admitted it's flawed and by its very nature can't sustain itself for long.

socialism does not mean the state you fucking mouthbreather

Why are you even sperging about "socialism" when valid criticisms of laissez-faire are pointed out? If it doesn't mean "the state", then it isn't the only alternative to laissez-faire and you shouldn't be meming about it like the brainwashed little Americunt faggot that you are in the first place.

Franco wasn't even third position, he was just a conservative dictator.