Is classical liberalism dead?

Tnu1138

I don't know it seems like people are gravitating in three general directions. leftism, conservatism, and statism. Just people are so scared of the state stepping back even a little and just so scared of eachother that they're willign to lie down and take it. talkign with Ian just n ow as made me wonder if classical liberalism has a palce in the world anymore.

Beholderess

You mean libertarianism?

Tnu1138

yes quite simmilar though the term classical liberalism predates itwhat we call liberalism today is social liberalism or left-liberalism.

Beholderess

As far as this one can see on forums, it is still quite popular. Personally, this one finds it scary due to what this one perceives as blaming of the victim. "If you are dying, it's your own damn fault and you are entitled to no help".

Tnu1138

the idea sot to allow people to stand on their own two feet instead of creating a situation that makes people interdependent on the state. People aren't necessarily entitled to anything that isn't voluntarily given to them. Otherwise what makes them entitled to take it from someone else? One of the core ideas is that liberty brews prosparity and community. If I have a right to my own money i'd be more willing to lend it to someone who needs it. You'd be surprised what people are willign to do when not pressured. From my understanding no matter what it is people become more reluctent to do somthign when pressured to do so b an external force.

Beholderess

And yet sometimes they have to be, if human rights are to mean anything but words on paper. Charity is not something that can be relied on, after all. What if no generous person happens to be nearby?
But this one is far from advocating an unlimited power of the state. Why do you see it that way, this one wonders?

Tnu1138

because I see an inseprable bond between personal liberty and economic liberty. what left-liberalism and conservatism don't get is that these thigns can not be whole without one another. god there needs to be another better word for left-liberals. social liberal doesn't cover it as it sounds like your talking about purely the cultural and social aspect of liberalism isntead of an ideology as a whole. left-liberalism just looks awkward just there needs to be a better word instead of how the word liberalism has been co-opted. Also why do they call Conservatives Torrys in the UK? Didn't the Conservative movement start to combat the torrys? Sorry went off on a tangent but the idea is that you give the state an inch they will go a mile. you have them loosley defiend so there is room for them to embelish and they will. One of the big issues with the services mentioned that worries me is a scenario where the people are interdependent on the state and thus completely willing to comply and conform.

Beholderess

Well, I do not think that state should have a monopoly on services. Those who can afford private services are more than welcome to not conform. But for others their perceived freedom would mean nothing if they do not have the means to use it.

For example, there is a reform in education recently started in my country. According to it, now only a few subjects (namely, physical ed, Russian, basic math and "place of our country in the world" - see patriotic brainwashing) are guaranteed to be free to study in every school. Two or three additional subjects a pupil can choose (but there are no guarantees that they'd be available in any give school), and the rest? Pay up! In the name, it is supposed to give people an option to customise education and be free to study whatever they choose. But in practice? The choices of children from low-income families (a vast majority of those who uses state-sponsored schools anyway. Upper-class prefers private) became much more limited than they were. Is that a freedom?

Tnu1138

actually I'm in support of an alternative to public education. I find that state run schools are generally horrible because they're not forced to compete with private schools so I suggest state funded vouchers for everyone. HOwever in my country the system for education will have to be handled on a lower level then national sicne the federal government has no authority on the matter.

Beholderess

They might be worse that private schools (which do exist, are numerous, and available for those who can afford it), but for those who can't afford private education, it is certainly much, much better than nothing. Without public education, it's not like those children will suddenly be admitted in private schools. One can have a) public education for those who can't pay and private for those who can or b) private education for those who can pay and...nothing for those who can't. Which means that these people's right to get education would mean nothing but empty words on paper.

This one suspects that the main difference is that you only value negative freedom, while this one values both negative and positive. Generally speaking, negative thumps positive, but not all freedoms are equally important, so a very important positive might in some cases thump less important negative.

Tnu1138

your use of the word "thumb" is u nusual could you explain? Also i'm advocatign a middle gorund on that one. Education is important but isntead of having a state run school use a voucher system to allow parents to decide on whatever school they wish to take their children to. if I could afford it I have very specific ideas of the kidn of school I would want ot take my kids. Unfortionetly knowign what public school is like having gone through it myself I wouldnt' want that for them. a Democratic education would be ideal provided I could afford it.  so a good compremise would be a voucher system where education isn't so much provided by the state but funding is provided to the parents to pick a school for their children. It's a step in the right direction at least.

Beholderess

A colloquial, as far as this one knows. Basically, that it conflict between the two one beats other.

if I could afford it I have very specific ideas of the kidn of school I would want ot take my kids

If you can afford it, you already have this option. If you can't afford it, without state interference you'd have none.

Tnu1138

this is why to kme on this one issue a voucher system that advocates school choice is ideal instead of a state run school.  it's just enough to help but not enough to controll.  it is an acceptable compremise but in my country it cdouldn't be handled by the federal government and weould have to be taken care of on a lower level.

Beholderess

That is a sound idea, and this one sincerely doubts that even most of those you call left liberals would oppose it. However, it still relies at getting the money from populace whether they want it or not, an idea you seem to oppose.

Tnu1138

yeah I advocate very minimal taxation on the people cut all waste and only provide services specifically outlined on a federal level. the individual state sof my ciounttry have slightly more power but untill a pure market solution for the school situation can be used it is an adequit compremise. ideally schools would be handled through a different system (there's an anarchist YouTuber known as LaughingMan who illustrates a nice one in one of his videos).

Beholderess

What exactly do you consider waste?

Tnu1138

generally anything the federal government isn't allowed to do. wealth re-distribution, subsidies,  bailouts, a majority of federal government programs, enforcing laws that the federal government has no business enacting.

Beholderess

What should it be allowed to do then, in your opinion?

Tnu1138

right now in my country it has pwoers specifically granted ot it. For example to build post offices and post roads, To coin money and set its value, to establish an army and navy, to name a few. you need to create a government of enuemrated powers in essence it only has powers strictly granted to it by a constitution. It must also have a complex system based on the consent of the governed if it needs to gain new powers which should be used incredibly sparingly (it has happend a few times in my country the process outlien din Article V of our Constitution) if your itnerested in kowing what powers our federal government has and ONLY those pwoers I can point you in the right direction. However over centures it's been abusing its pwoer and giving itself powers it doesn't have.

Nova

Please remind me, Tnu- why is the Constitution so infallible?

Tnu1138

I wouldn't say it's infallible that's why Article V exists.

Nova

What makes you think the general populace will understand what is better for them over the people actually in charge of the country?

Tnu1138

because the people in charge are as a rule corrupt and incompotent if they are benevolent they ar eincompotent if they are compotent they are corrupt.  you can have compotence, corruption, or neither with slim exceptions. case in point our Federal Reserve.  The Food and Drug Administration, The Department of Educaiton, all of these fall udner one of those two categories.

Nova

-sigh-

Being competent does not imply corruption. Please kill that notion. Now.

Tnu1138

It seems like a general pollitical rule i've only seen a few exceptions. Namely a representative from Texas and MAYBE my father and my towns Mayor.

Nova

Yay for generalizations.

If you have not interacted with every politician, particularly those in charge of the country, and have not glimpsed the inner workings of the government, you are not qualified to judge anyone in this field.

Tnu1138

Can I at least say my father is a bit crooked sometimes?

Nova

Yes. But you cannot claim the same is true for everyone who is not your father.

Tnu1138

what abotu the Mayor? I know hi m personally too.

Vivi

Two people. That's so many Tnu.

Tnu1138

I'm just saying. I've created a habit of not trusting authority because I don't trust hem to act in the best itnerest of the people.