RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 9:39am

Link

Edit

Luke,
Do you make a distinction between liberalism and libertarianism, or do you view them as synonymous? Also, is it an actual goal of yours to work towards changing the way the majority of people currently use the term "liberal"? If so, I think you have your work cut out for you, given that the vast majority are not yet even aware of the difference between modern and classical liberalism. -Steve

"modern liberalism": Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (at the social level) :)

Post 1

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 11:29am

Link

Edit

Modern liberalism: Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (at the social level) :) -- Steven Pilotte
Thanks for that, Steven. Luke J. Morris's article was nicely composed, clear, and concise. As you note, changing the common definition of "liberal" will be a challenge. In fact, the article could have been called "What is Conservatism?" and made exactly the same points. Perhaps buttressing an argument for personal liberty with quotes from Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton would have carried weight. Similarly, as you pointed out, it could have been called "What is Libertarianism?"

"What is Liberalism?" is easy to read and understand. I could print it out and distribute it to my class in Law Enforcement Ethics, as we discussed the theories of Ethics in the first couple of weeks of school. I will not do that, though, because everyone would read it, agree with it -- and not change a single idea or alter any course of action.

I am not sure how to create a "learning moment." As an instructor, the best I have been able to achieve (I think) is to allow an environment in which learning moments happen.

Post 2

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 1:58pm

Link

Edit

Steven,

I don't make a very strong distinction between liberal (or 'classical liberal') and libertarian, but if I must sum up my political beliefs in a word, I prefer the former to the latter. For one, though I support the Libertarian Party in principle, I don't actively campaign for them, and I rarely vote, so I don't want to implicitly associate myself with any political party. For another, 'libertarian' is a word that has been largely hijacked by anarcho-capitalists (see Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity Test). Though I have several close friends who are an-caps, Rockwellians, and Mises Institute scholars, and I agree with much of their economic analyses and policy recommendations, I don't agree with their Libertopian view of the ideal (stateless) society, and I don't want to tie myself in with that notion. I also have no wish to be associated with the 'civil libertarians' of the ACLU, as I so often find myself at odds with them.

In Europe, as I understand it, the term 'liberal' still has a meaning similar to its original usage. Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek both eschewed the label 'libertarian', preferring to classify their political philosophies as variations of liberalism (see von Mises' Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, one of my favorite books on the subject). Yes, I understand that fighting back against the Orwellian reversal of the meaning of language is an uphill battle, but it's one that I'm willing to fight.

And in my experience, while many people are willing to dismiss a 'libertarian' out-of-hand, when I refer to myself as a 'classical liberal', it inspires curiosity to find out what I mean by that. When I explain that I am a true liberal, that I support gay marriage and abortion, but that I oppose the welfare state and affirmative action, my opponents are more likely to sit up and take notice, and to actually consider my arguments. Whereas a 'libertarian' is often seen as a type of 'conservative' (and I take offense whenever anyone calls me that!), a self-avowed liberal could hardly be pigeon-holed that way.

I do appreciate your comment.
"Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy." Hehe. That's awesome.

Post 3

Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 2:20pm

Link

Edit

Michael,

Thank you for your comments on my article, and I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I originally wrote this piece over a year ago (I revised it slightly before submitting it here) for the campus club I co-founded at Hillsdale College, the Hillsdale Liberals. I resurrected the club five years ago from the ashes of the College Libertarians. On a heavily neoconservative campus, we found it easier to draw attention and stir up interest among students and faculty by referring to ourselves as 'liberals'. This article served as an introduction to what we meant by the term, so simplicity, accuracy, and brevity were key. I'm pleased that you found it clear and concise - I accomplished my aim on that, at least!

I'm curious about what you mean by a "learning moment". Is this a certain moment of revelation or enlightenment on the part of the student? Does it happen when he makes a new conceptual integration that he hadn't thought of before, or simply when he comes across new information? Just wondering.

Post 4

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 1:51am

Link

Edit

Excellent primer, Luke. However, I think it's too late to reclaim "liberal" &, contra Bidinotto, too early to surrender "libertarian."

Linz

Post 5

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 1:58am

Link

Edit

Linz,

The term "Neoliberalism," which I coined from Rand's "For The New Intellectual" and Classical Liberalism some decades ago - meaning a new liberalism informed by Ayn Rand's and other libertarian ideas - has gained some currency, so I don't think it's too late.

Post 6

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 2:15am

Link

Edit

"Neo"-anything won't cut it.

Post 7

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 9:36am

Link

Edit

Thanks, Linz!

I don't object to calling myself a libertarian, just to simplify things, though I often then have to clarify that I'm not affiliated with the LP or the market anarchists (though I did like Michael Badnarik when I met him, and Bob Murphy is one of my close friends).

Maybe it's just my youthful curmudgeonliness, though, but I have fun pissing people off and making them think, and that's what my advocation of 'classical liberalism' tends to do. Descriptive terms, in my experience, make a huge difference in how people perceive you. And whereas even right-wing Republicrats write me off as a fringe wacko when I describe my ideas as libertarian, when I instead refer to myself as a classical liberal (with the implied synthesis of traditionalism and progressivism), they actually listen to my arguments. So, purely from a first-person point of view, it does make a difference.

My friend Richard Latimer has suggested that we instead use the term 'non-traditional individualist', but that seems a little too broad for a purely political description. And I agree that 'Neoliberalism' is wanting; I don't want to portray myself as purely a respondant to neoconservatives (though they are the ones I most often find myself butting heads with, at least here in southern MI).

Glad you liked the article!

Post 8

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 1:25pm

Link

Edit

Well written. The references spice it up nicely. With your permission, I would like to distribute it to my "Culture and Society in the West" class next term when we cover the period from 1500 to the present. It will create World War III in the class, given the anti-capitalist mentality on my campus.

Post 9

Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 5:27pm

Link

Edit

Oh, permission granted, by all means. I do so enjoy starting world wars - I'm like Helen of Troy that way.

Post 10

Monday, October 3, 2005 - 3:51am

Link

Edit

Careful! You'll be getting volunteers to be your Paris! :-)