Was "classical liberalism" ever a real thing? People reference it in passing all the time...

Was "classical liberalism" ever a real thing? People reference it in passing all the time, but it seems difficult to get a sense of it as a historical force the way progressivism or even fascism were.

You're right, I can't think of any event

Both progs and ancaps take themselves as the ideological successors of the Founding Fathers. Which is closer to the real thing?

Ancaps are closest.

>it seems difficult to get a sense of it as a historical force
Industrial Revolutions, French Revolution, American Revolution, basically any revolution that isn't done by monarchists, commies or fascists, who are just reacting to them.

Who gives a shit?

Those that went with Rawls' A Theory of Justice are social liberals ("liberals" in common US parlance), those that went with Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia are libertarians.

The classical liberals are their own thing and didn't change, there is no room for Rawls' neo-kantianism and fantasies of ideology-free liberal "neutrality", nor Nozick's fantasies of minarchy in which the state somehow steps down without a revolution instead of growing larger as an institution - which is what it continues to do.

Let them argue over property and redistribution of resources, behind the aptly named veil of ignorance, all they want, they missed the point, the most important thing: man and his liberty.

If you live in a liberal democracy, most governmental traditions and structure have come from classical liberalism.

Policies such as democracy, constitutions and freedom of speech come directly from classical liberalism.


Also, classical economic thought that was prevalent from after the Napoleonic wars until Keynes' general theory was based off the principles of classical liberalism. This means that a century of economic policy was based off classical liberal beliefs, quite a historical force if you ask me.

It's of course impossible to say what the founding fathers would think of modern America, but I would say that minarchists more closely identify with their version of liberal principles.

The roles of government that were deemed legitimate back then are most in common with the roles of government that minarchists advocate.

Had they had 325,000,000 people to manage, they would have told you minarchy was never an option.

>Industrial revolution
>Anything to do with politics

>French revolution
>Classical liberalism
Except it had nothing to do with whigs and everything to do nationalists and proto-socialists.

And had they had that many people to manage, they may have suggested even more minarchy with more power to local governments.

Classical liberalism is very important in British (and subsequently American) history. It's just that people only started calling it classical liberalism very recently, originally it was liberalism or whigism.

Rule of law and free market in Britain; French Enlightenment thinkers reading their Locke and other brits.

It's the one time in history Anglos did something right.

It's a meme. If someone says they are a classical liberal in 2017 I would laugh at them harder than a Marxist.

They are usually neocons/neolibs who fail to see how important the state is in creating and maintaining markets.

Which is closer to the real thing?
Neither
It's either normal libertarianism or paleo conservativsm

Yes OP it was a thing, but it obviously wasn't called classical liberalism.

It was simply liberalism, or it was sometimes called radicalism in France.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But I think it's something to the effect of "Britain was classically liberal, French thinkers were influenced by British classical liberal thinkers".

A few things.
a) The chief goal of the French revolution was neither rule of law nor free markets. It was establishing a French nationalist republic that could promise civil liberties and relative equality.

b) It's true, French enlightenment thinkers were very influenced by liberal Brits like Locke. But French revolutionaries were mainly inspired by those French thinkers rather than the people they were inspired by.

>neocons
>advocating for free markets

>neolibs
I bet you believe trickle down economics is a thing too.

Also, the most stable period of capitalism existed before the establishment of central banking in the early to mid 20th century.

>Most stable period of capitalism
>The period with all the bloodiest wars fought in the history of mankind by far.

I was talking about market stability.

Unless of course you're saying that the world needed more government power to counteract the government power that you are saying was manipulated by capitalism to wage war.

>Unless of course you're saying that the world needed more government power to counteract the government power that you are saying was manipulated by capitalism to wage war.
u wot

I'm saying it's retarded to call that a stable or desirable period given all the massive earth-shattering wars going on.

>Was "classical liberalism" ever a real thing?
no
it was mercantilism, which is the economy part of classical liberalism adapted to nationalism.

classical liberalism is the fantasy of libertarianism today.

-a strong parliamentary republic/state within a tiny scope

-a strong faith of ''''''''competition''''''''''

-a strong faith that competition makes people better

-a strong faith that '''''''''free markets'''''''''''' regulated by the tiny superstrong policeman that is the state, to break any burgeoning monopoles

-a strong faith that competition (about material things and about ''''''ideas''''''''') brings appeasement of the '''''''bad'''''''human nature

-a strong faith that once people are educated to libertarianism, throughout the federal/national instruction ( not mandatory to attend public school, but it is mandatory to teach children how good libertarianism is , meaning how good it is to embrace the liberal rationalism of the human rights)

-a strong faith that ''''''''''''rationality'''''''''''' as liberals define it is the pinnacle of the human life, with the liberal uber man as ''''''''''the free thinker'''''''''''' (but materially depending on others)

-a strong faith that truth is associated to this normative liberal reason

-a strong faith that only the liberal republic can bring this to the ''''''''nice people'''''''''' who is always right therefore it is cogent to ask the ''''''''''''educated people'''''''' to vote once every few years

-a strong faith that ''''''democracy perhaps fails, but any other form of society is worse LOL''''''

-a strong faith that it is worth it to watch people, to prosecute people who are less liberals that ''''what is accepted today by the mores (according to precedent judgement by '''''''''republican judges''''''''''), to put them in ''''''''fair trials'''''''''''', before a liberal judge who chose to be paid to judge and claim to be ''''''''fair'''''''' (and not corrupted) because he learnt in the republican school that '''''''the separation of powers in to legislative, judicial and executive is the pinnacle of the enlightenment and guarantee of fairness''''''''''''''''''', and who does not give a shit whether the ''''''''''''''defendant'''''' acknowledges him as a judge
[as a side note, in liberal society, the liberals chose to judge you even if you do not go your trial, and the judge will claim to be offended, make your punishment higher while still claiming to be fair]
and finally put the '''''''''''bad'''''''''people in their tiny liberal cells)

-the strong faith that '''''depriving a man of his liberal ''''''''''''''freedom (like voting)''''''''''''''''''and make him leave in a tiny cell is the worst punishment ever'''''''''' while claiming that passing through a liebral prison will make magically the culprit a better man at the end

-a unique ''social link'''''''''' as the mandatory duty to pay '''''''''''the contribution to the republic'''''' [aka taxes, bc taxes are inherently for the king] which always come to a reminder of the liberal threat that if you to not pay the liberal taxes, the liberal prosecutor feels entitled to prosecute you before a '''''''''''''''fair'''''''''''''''''' judge.

-a strong faith in '''''''''''free will'''''''''''' and that the free market develops it and that judging people is okay [liberty becomes responsibility]

If you're advocating that capitalism caused all of the post-Napoleonic wars (although there was more war pre-capitalism), why would using government power to control markets not bring markets closer to infuencing government policy?

And before you turn around and say that although there were less wars, there were more casualties, these casualties were due to technological advancement.

You can blame technological advancement on capitalism, sure, but if you're against technological advancement, you're just a luddite.

Autistic shitposting.

>why would using government power to control markets not bring markets closer to infuencing government policy?
Ah, I see you're trying to bait me into an argument.

I don't think we should give the government less power. I think we should have some kind of apocalyptic event to completely industrial society and the resources necessary to it, and then start civilization fresh with the knowledge that there aren't enough resources left on the planet for another industrial revolution so we can never develop past the modern era.

>these casualties were due to technological advancement.
Exactly, and industrial technology is the true nemesis of all life on earth.

> you're just a luddite.
And that's not an argument.

today, you have federal regulation about the monetary mass, which is the most difference with the first classical liberals

I expected you to be somewhere on the spectrum of the moderate left, but you actually seem to be a luddite. Calling you one isn't an argument but that's actually what you are.

Don't you enjoy shitposting with your computer/phone on a annie may imageboard website?

You realise we wouldn't be having this conversation if not for the industrial revolution?

You must be here just to spread the word for everyone to shun technology or you're being awfully hypocritical.

>Don't you enjoy shitposting with your computer/phone on a annie may imageboard website?
Yes.

But it's one of the few things I enjoy in an otherwise miserable existence.

>You must be here just to spread the word for everyone to shun technology or you're being awfully hypocritical.
I don't think we should shun technology. I think we should fully accelerate industrial capitalism given that it's inevitably going to collapse and bring much of the world with it, we should ensure that this happens as quickly and explosively as possible.

By having this conversation and using a computer it brings the world slightly closer to a post-apocalyptic neo-modern utopia.

You're right OP I can't think of a single thing

Classical liberalism was mostly an excuse for being a paranoid, greedy douche and that's why it fizzled out.