[nucklepunche]

Libertarianism and classical liberalism are often conflated as being one in the same, libertarians often accuse modern welfare state liberals of stealing their terminology, although I think there is a philosophical connection between the two in that both are creatures of the Enlightenment. I notice a few differences in classical liberalism and libertarianism.

Here are what I view as the key differences between libertarianism and classical liberalism.

Libertarians tend to adhere to deontological ethics and thus endorse free markets as the are most consistent with an ethic of non-intervention. Classical liberals by contrast tend to be utilitarians to some degree, either hard or soft utilitarians. Most of them justify support for free market policies in cost vs. benefit terms.

While traditional libertarians often argue on cost/benefit terms for free market policies, there is always the morality at the basis of it. In a sense "Austrian economics" is essentially a form of apologetics for the position that private property should never be interfered with, and essentially seeks arguments that justify free markets. Classical liberals by contrast tend to believe that in a majority of situations free market solutions are simply better for the greatest good of the greatest number, however they would support state intervention if they could be convinced it works.

Classical liberals are more supportive of a government role in providing public goods than libertarians are.

Classical liberals tend to support democracy, at least as long as a bill of rights is in place. Libertarians by contrast philosophically reject democracy even if living under a democratic system. A libertarian society would best be governed by a benevolent monarch or totally privatized government.

Classical liberals are for the most part open to political alliances with traditional conservatives and other elements of the center-right. Libertarians generally view traditional conservatism and libertarianism as mutually exclusive.

Any thoughts on this?

[TropicalK]

Libertarianism itself is split, with many libertarians being utilitarians. I'm a utilitarian libertarian, as was Mises and Milton Friedman (if you consider him a Libertarian.)

Classical liberals are more supportive of a government role in providing public goods than libertarians are.

correct

Classical liberals tend to support democracy, at least as long as a bill of rights is in place. Libertarians by contrast philosophically reject democracy even if living under a democratic system. A libertarian society would best be governed by a benevolent monarch or totally privatized government.

correct

Classical liberals are for the most part open to political alliances with traditional conservatives and other elements of the center-right. Libertarians generally view traditional conservatism and libertarianism as mutually exclusive.

It depends on if we are talking about the theory of ideas, pragmatic method of governing societies rules, or individual self-interested human behavior of politicians. Theory is not something that can be compromised, similar to mathematics. Human behavior of libertarians is largely without regard to any libertarian societal ideal, merely the politician's individual interests. That leaves the pragmatic method governing society. The give and take of American politics and legislation is ill-suited for success, as every special interest needs its take. Libertarians are loathe to participate, especially when you consider the unseen and second order consequences of bad legislation.

[Technology]

Libertarianism is in fact a very large family of political philosophies focused on individual rights, and even includes things like Libertarian Marxism. Libertarianism is often equated purely with Austrian economics Mises/Rothbard style anarcho-capitalism, or the lighter Ron Paulist type, because that is the kind of libertarianism which has resurged recently in America.

As a group, libertarianism actually represents something far more diverse than classical liberalism, and although both are based on individual rights being maximized, a comparison would find classic liberalism to be far more consistently capitalist. I'm sorry to be pedantic on this point, but I think it needs noting. I agree on your comparison though, so long as we understand libertarianism as being right-libertarianism.

[emmitt]

It might even be questionable to use the term "classical liberalism" without any kind of modification. It could be applied to a couple of thinkers whose thoughts differed quite a bit.

John Stuart Mill's type of liberalism is probably a perfect example. It's not obvious if and when he stopped being a classical liberal. At the beginning of his career it's much less complicated to categorize him since he probably fits in quite well with other classically liberal thinkers. But he started developing his ideas on a "cooperative economy" which "anticipated" at least David Ellerman's Left-Libertarianism to a certain degree. ("Anticipating" is probably the wrong word here since mutualism is almost identical in this regard even though it obviously does away with the state and with private property in natural resources as well.)

[Rich]

Libertarianism is in fact a very large family of political philosophies focused on individual rights,

Stop right there! Who are these individuals? What about foreigners, women, children, foetuses, embryos, Zygotes, souls, karmic streams, Blacks? What does a right mean? Is it just am individuals beliefs about their entitlement? Was Genghis Khan just enforcing his rights.

You see if classical liberalism just means recognising the power of the market then I'm a classical Liberal. But market means government or else market just becomes another term for law of the jungle. For me the market is an agreed set of rules, within which individuals can complete. Agreed by a collective and enforced on the individual members of the collective but also on those outside the collective. Market is inextricably entwined with law and a set of punishments for infringements of that law.

Smash the unions particularly the middle class professional unions, abolish so called minimum wage. Get rid of discrimination legislation. Allow employers to fire who they want. Free trade. Create a government owned market for immigration. if inflation is low or negative and there is a shortage of demand then lower interest rates and if further stimulus required monetarise and use it to reduce the defecit rather than deliberately increasing the government deficit Keynesian style. In many ways I'm a classical Liberal.

What annoys me about Libertarians is that they will say things like: no Libertarian could ever support slavery, and then in the next breath they will be telling us that we've got to get back to Jeffersonian ideals. They are liars. Who is most Libertarian? Thomas Jefferson or Barak Obama? What is most un-Libertarian: slavery or Obamacare? I'm fine if Libertarians say Obama care but then Libertarians mustn't whine if we enslave them. And any Libertarians who find taxation odious should be put into slavery to which they can't object because its not as a bad as Obama care.

Of course the reality is that Libertarianism is White Supremacist racism. On the face of it Libertarianism is utter drivel. It only makes sense to Libertarians because there is an unsaid belief in White supreamcism. Libertarians would strongly object to the enslavement of "Whites". Its just Black slavery they ain't arsed about. Hence why taxation of White people is infinitely worse that Black slavery for a Libertarian.

[Joe Liberty]

Stop right there! Who are these individuals?

Just individuals. Human beings. They come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, you know. There's nothing mysterious nor complex about the definition.

You see if classical liberalism just means recognising the power of the market then I'm a classical Liberal. But market means government or else market just becomes another term for law of the jungle.

And this might be the line of demarcation between classic liberals and some libertarians (because there are indeed many flavors of the latter): the assumption that government is necessary for a market to function.

For me the market is an agreed set of rules, within which individuals can complete.

You don't need a government for that. In fact you don't need a whole lot of rules at all, just a fundamental recognition of property rights is good enough.

Market is inextricably entwined with law and a set of punishments for infringements of that law.

It's inextricably entwined with rules, I'll grant that. But rules aren't necessarily laws. Many things in a market are self-correcting (sell an inferior product and you won't be in business long, for example. Don't need any laws there, just the market's reaction to shoddy product.)

What annoys me about Libertarians is that they will say things like: no Libertarian could ever support slavery, and then in the next breath they will be telling us that we've got to get back to Jeffersonian ideals.

Slavery was not a "Jeffersonian ideal", so I don't understand your annoyance. Yes, he owned slaves, but he did not endorse the practice as part of his classical liberalism, nor as part of his political philosophy.

Who is most Libertarian? Thomas Jefferson or Barak Obama? What is most un-Libertarian: slavery or Obamacare? I'm fine if Libertarians say Obama care but then Libertarians mustn't whine if we enslave them. And any Libertarians who find taxation odious should be put into slavery to which they can't object because its not as a bad as Obama care.

This entire paragraph is nonsensical, because it's based upon a phony and absurd premise.

Of course the reality is that Libertarianism is White Supremacist racism. On the face of it Libertarianism is utter drivel. It only makes sense to Libertarians because there is an unsaid belief in White supreamcism. Libertarians would strongly object to the enslavement of "Whites". Its just Black slavery they ain't arsed about. Hence why taxation of White people is infinitely worse that Black slavery for a Libertarian.

I usually let this kind of mindless claptrap slide, but I'm in a mood today. Nothing in that last paragraph has a shred of truth. It's emotional, broad-brush stereotyping and thus doesn't really warrant a response but like I said, I'm in a mood. Libertarians are the least racists people on this planet. We don't see group affiliation, we see individuals. And we aren't confused as to what an individual is.

[Technology]

Stop right there! Who are these individuals? What about foreigners, women, children, foetuses, embryos, Zygotes, souls, karmic streams, Blacks? What does a right mean? Is it just am individuals beliefs about their entitlement? Was Genghis Khan just enforcing his rights.

Here "individual rights" is short-hand for individual freedoms where the law is pared down to direct harm as close as possible, and does not mean "anyone can do anything". Individualism is also about the general bias a society has, and how decentralized the power to do most things is. Ghengis Khan enforced his right to go around killing people because he wanted their stuff, thereby violating their individual rights to the maximum degree.

You see if classical liberalism just means recognising the power of the market

Fine, but I never said that.

But market means government or else market just becomes another term for law of the jungle.

Markets require governments to enforce the ground rules, so as to define the market, yes. Pretty much only anarcho-capitalists disagree with this.

Market is inextricably entwined with law and a set of punishments for infringements of that law.

Indeed, but how many centralized laws and how harsh they should be on issues in general is variously conceivable. I think there need to be few laws if there is a good foundation.

Smash the unions particularly the middle class professional unions,

No, this is disgusting. It puts all the power in the hands of the employees, or further into the hands of "one size fits all" government regulation instead. Regulation should be largely from the ground up and wildcat strikes should be legalized again. In order to have a balanced market, labor power needs to be competitive with capital power (the conditional principle of distributism that the means of production be spread to as many owners as possible also helps with this as it means labor has more ability to employ itself).

abolish so called minimum wage.

Agreed, but replace it with local referendums on the living wage for each area. More pluralism means more account to local variation, and businesses which do not pay what that community considers a minimum wage should not have their property protected by the police, nor receive any government assistance.

Get rid of discrimination legislation. Allow employers to fire who they want.

Agreed, so long as there are strong support systems to fall back on.

Create a government owned market for immigration. if inflation is low or negative and there is a shortage of demand then lower interest rates and if further stimulus required monetarise and use it to reduce the defecit rather than deliberately increasing the government deficit Keynesian style.

Monetary policy is a valid tool, but so is fiscal stimulus. You certainly shouldn't try to cut deficits during a downturn. Keynes rightly recognized this even if many right-libertarians do not.

What annoys me about Libertarians is that they will say things like: no Libertarian could ever support slavery, and then in the next breath they will be telling us that we've got to get back to Jeffersonian ideals. They are liars. Who is most Libertarian? Thomas Jefferson or Barak Obama? What is most un-Libertarian: slavery or Obamacare? I'm fine if Libertarians say Obama care but then Libertarians mustn't whine if we enslave them. And any Libertarians who find taxation odious should be put into slavery to which they can't object because its not as a bad as Obama care.

Um...

Of course the reality is that Libertarianism is White Supremacist racism. On the face of it Libertarianism is utter drivel. It only makes sense to Libertarians because there is an unsaid belief in White supreamcism. Libertarians would strongly object to the enslavement of "Whites". Its just Black slavery they ain't arsed about. Hence why taxation of White people is infinitely worse that Black slavery for a Libertarian.

Taxation is NOT worse than slavery. Not even remotely. I'm a libertarian (as well as some other things). The libertardians bubbling up in America right now do not represent the final word on libertarian principles.

White supremacism is disgusting. If there was mass support for Nazis or communists, I'd hope the commies win.

[SecretSquirrel]

Utilitarians are neither classical liberals nor libertarians. They cannot be. Both classical liberalism and libertarianism are rooted in morality, whereas the whole notion of utilitarianism is relativist and anti-moral

[Rich]

Utilitarians are neither classical liberals nor libertarians. They cannot be. Both classical liberalism and libertarianism are rooted in morality, whereas the whole notion of utilitarianism is relativist and anti-moral

Ah now we're talking. You see I'm a selfish individual with a certain level of power and I'm interested in negotiating with other self interested individuals for the mutual benefit of our individual goals. When I say selfish I mean it in the broadest sense of the world. I might be obsessed with finding a cure for Cancer but that's still my personal trip. And I have to answer to my own conscience, as the large majority of individuals do. So for me governance is just a negotiation between individuals with power. We can negotiate "protection" for entities without power, children , foetuses, embryos, forests, Elephants, Whales, what ever takes our fancy. There is no assumption of absolute morality in this. But there is a recognition of commonality in personal morality and liberal convergence.

Because I don't believe in absolute morality it is ambiguous whether I should be classified as a classical Liberal. But it means for me slavery is not as issue its just a particular case of a bunch of people doing something that a bunch of other people don't like. However for those that do believe in absolute morality, the question of slavery can not be avoided. Which is worse slavery or Obama care? Who is more of a Libertarian Jefferson or Obama? Who is more of a classical Liberal Jefferson or Obama?

Was Abraham Lincoln one of the greatest Libertarians of all time?

[Joe Liberty]

Because I don't believe in absolute morality it is ambiguous whether I should be classified as a classical Liberal.

Without an absolute morality, what difference does it make what label you adopt? You can just change it on a whim, for any reason or no reason at all. When everything is subjective, you can call yourself whatever you want.

However for those that do believe in absolute morality, the question of slavery can not be avoided. Which is worse slavery or Obama care?

I don't understand this dichotomy you're trying to establish. Is our choice either slavery or Obamacare? If we reject one, we must accept the other as legitimate?

Wait, I think I get it now: Jefferson owned slaves, so we should reject everything he thought and wrote. Obama does not own slaves, so nothing he can do is an offense to libertarianism.

That's some awesome logic right there.

[Rich]

I don't understand this dichotomy you're trying to establish. Is our choice either slavery or Obamacare? If we reject one, we must accept the other as legitimate?

I consider murder worse than shop lifting or tax fraud. that doesn't mean I condone tax fraud or shop lifting.

How can slavery be this minor blemish? It would be ludicrous. How is Jefferson different from Himmler? We know how he's different. Himmler enslaved White people. And of course so did Stalin.

[Joe Liberty]

I consider murder worse than shop lifting or tax fraud. that doesn't mean I condone tax fraud or shop lifting.

Then stop phrasing the question as an either/or. Slavery is bad, and Obamacare is bad. Slavery is worse, but Obamacare is still bad. Clear now?

How can slavery be this minor blemish? It would be ludicrous. How is Jefferson different from Himmler? We know how he's different. Himmler enslaved White people. And of course so did Stalin.

You're the one telling me that libertarians think slavery is a "minor blemish", I didn't say that and never would. I've never heard any libertarian say that. You're the one implying that Jefferson loved slavery and supported it and wanted it to continue, not I. If you'd read anything Jefferson wrote you'd know that your premise is completely wrong.

http://www.monticello.org/site/plantati ... nd-slavery

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/th ... lavery.php

It's very easy and convenient to judge people 200+ years dead through the filter of 21st Century culture. But it's not all that accurate.

[Lightman]

Utilitarians are neither classical liberals nor libertarians. They cannot be. Both classical liberalism and libertarianism are rooted in morality, whereas the whole notion of utilitarianism is relativist and anti-moral

Utilitarianism isn't relativist. Utilitarianism has an objective basis for morality - the greatest good principle. That principle may prescribe different actions under different circumstances, but that doesn't make it relativist.

Was J.S. Mill not a classical liberal or something?

[Joe Liberty]

Utilitarianism isn't relativist. Utilitarianism has an objective basis for morality - the greatest good principle. That principle may prescribe different actions under different circumstances, but that doesn't make it relativist.

Aren't "greatest" and "good" both relative terms?

If "the greatest good principle" says that whatever benefits the most people is automatically ethical, there's nothing objective about that at all. It seems to me that a principle defines means, not ends. If any means can be excused as long as a majority seems to benefit then there's no objective principle at work, just the relative perspectives of those involved (which, if you're not one of the majority, is probably something other than "good").

[Lightman]

Utilitarians believe that happiness is to some degree objective.

Also, sorry, I misnamed the principle of utilitarianism. It isn't the greatest good principle; it's the greatest happiness principle.

[emmitt]

Well, there's also preference utilitarianism which doesn't really take pure happiness maximization into consideration. It's more (or maybe even solely) focused on the promotion of actions that are in one's interests. Peter Singer used to be a proponent of this type of utilitarianism but even he must have noticed at some point in his life that it's pretty silly (16:45 - 17:28).

[sol]

If "the greatest good principle" says that whatever benefits the most people is automatically ethical, there's nothing objective about that at all. It seems to me that a principle defines means, not ends. If any means can be excused as long as a majority seems to benefit then there's no objective principle at work, just the relative perspectives of those involved (which, if you're not one of the majority, is probably something other than "good").

I'm no utilitarian, but I've read Mill. He would argue that happiness (in the sense of eudaimonic flourishing, not simply hedonistic pleasure) objectively undergirds all ethical systems, regardless of their compatibility. Mill argues that a well-functioning liberal state would not try to impose any sort of ethical norm, as that would be a misunderstanding of the purpose of ethics, but would recognize the fundamental drive guiding all ethical actions, the greatest happiness principle, and seek to maximize it. Mill also asserts that the closer each individual comes to maximizing her happiness, the better off society is in aggregate. He wouldn't suggest that the state should try to maximize happiness for its citizens, only that it should recognize and provide avenues for its realization.

[sol]

Utilitarians believe that happiness is to some degree objective.

I know I just addressed this, but I think it might be worth emphasizing that no utilitarians* claim that happiness is objective, rather they believe that all ethics are means of justifying actions taken to maximize happiness. Ethics are essentially consequential, born from an individual weighing the pursuit of her desires against those of her immediate social group. The compromises made between individuals for the sake of each other's happiness combined with the justification of pleasures unique to each individual or held in common by a social group are all that constitute an ethical system, objectively.

*that I've read

[Rich]

Of course if you believe in heaven and hell and that the right beliefs can determine your eternal destination than burning heretics can be the utilitarian choice.

[sol]

Of course if you believe in heaven and hell and that the right beliefs can determine your eternal destination than burning heretics can be the utilitarian choice.

You're right, burning heretics would be a difficult problem for a utilitarian, because to avoid condoning it he would have to answer how it can be both unjust and found to be ethical by a large group who are supposedly maximizing their happiness. The answer would probably be that burning the heretics violates his basic rights as a human to seek a happy life. The group's decision to murder would have to be explained away as a perversion of the happiness principle, the unfortunate result of irrationality inherent in religion or something like that. Utilitarianism is a mess when you try to apply it.

Utilitarianism was a theory formed by liberals for the secular state. Utilitarians like Bentham and Mill wanted to form a materialist conception of justice that would be adequate for guiding state institutions. In theory, it's incompatible with religious ethics and virtue ethics, both of which appeal to immaterial authorities for justification. Though a utilitarian would claim that they are utilitarian in practice, when you review historical examples such as witch hunts and wife burning, it's difficult to locate the happiness principle at work.