The term “classical liberal” has indeed been adopted by many modern conservatives, who argue it aligns with their emphasis on limited government, individual liberty, and free markets.
They often trace the term back to its origins in the 17th and 18th centuries, pointing to thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and the American Founders, who championed personal freedom, property rights, and restrained state power against monarchical or collectivist systems.
Historically, classical liberalism emerged during the Enlightenment, emphasizing reason, individual rights, and skepticism of centralized authority. Locke’s ideas on natural rights—life, liberty, and property—influenced the U.S. Constitution, while Smith’s Wealth of Nations laid the groundwork for free-market economics. These principles, conservatives argue, are closer to their modern platforms than to contemporary liberalism, which they see as favoring expansive government and social engineering.
However, the term’s usage isn’t without contention. . . .
That contrasts sharply with the modern liberal platform.
The main planks of which seem to be
This subset of America is bad, and that subset of America is bad. We must use the power of givernment to fight them to seize their money and give it to others.
In other cases, no one is particulalry bad, stuill me must use government to seize money form some and give it to others. That is the central purpose of government
What? You have opposing ideas? We must shut down you ability to communicate, round up your leaders and subject them to legal punishments.
I then reiterated it and asked others (including you) to ponder why it would be necessary in multiple posts.
It was further down the thread that I threw out a completely original, out of the thin blue air, hypothetical…(unless you’re suggesting Habeas was suspended sometime recently, let’s say 2020, and none of us knew about it)
But all of you outragers said you didn’t want to play “whatabout”.
Guess we’re stuck in a doom loop, with a bunch of witless and unimaginative losers willing to defend every attack their “leaders” have dreamed up and launched against their enemies, all the while unwilling to accept any responsibility or repercussions for their actions.
Look at the ruckus libs have caused on behalf of their new hero/martyr “kilmar”. Now imagine how bad it could be if the criminals responsible for the "russia collusion " hoax were ever held accountable.
You are referencing repercussions and responsibility in a thread about suspension of habeas corpus. I am sure you don’t actually mean that it should be suspended as a form of repercussion in a future hypothetical event that is nearly identical to the 2020 scenario. I am sure you are just thinking out loud. Cool
I tend to agree on this one. Classical liberalism is but a pipe dream in today’s reality. I see those who like to believe they are classical liberals recite platitudes. But in really, that is all they’ve got. Our landscape today is dramatically different than it was 250 years ago.
Neither conservatism nor modern liberalism is authoritarian. There are authoritarians on both sides of the political aisle. However, all Presidents do tend to be authoritarian by their nature. It kind of goes with the territory.
Both sides are equally guilty in claiming to own the constitution. Any disagreement inevitably means the other side doesn’t respect the constitution.
Been dealing with a rare autoimmune disorder for a few years now - that, combined with some new health issues is just doing a number on me. It’s complicated. But I try not to dwell on it.
I’ve got some thoughts, but I’m wondering if a thread comparing modern liberalism with modern conservatism might be in order. I don’t believe we have had that kind of conversation in some time.
Contrast these quotes to “This or that subeset of Ameica is Evil. The purpose of genverment is to take their stuff and give it to more-deserving people.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry… has acquired too much, in order to spare to others… is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association.” (Letter to Joseph Milligan, 1816)
James Madison:
“That is not a just government… where the property which a man has… is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” (National Gazette, 1792)
John Adams:
“Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty.” (Defence of the Constitutions, 1787)
Thomas Paine:
“Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not competent.” (The Rights of Man, 1791)
Alexander Hamilton:
“The security of property is one of the primary objects of civil society, and the powers of government should be limited to those necessary for its protection.” (Federalist No. 10, 1787)
“A power to dispose of the property of individuals without their consent would be a dangerous authority, inconsistent with the principles of a free government.” (Federalist No. 78, 1788)
John Locke (1632–1704):
“Every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself.” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689)
“Government has no other end but the preservation of property.” (Two Treatises of Government)
Declaration of Independence
. . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
You are contrasting classical liberalism with modern liberalism. We have no disagreement in that regard. They aren’t remotely similar.
My argument centers more on the differences between modern conservatism and classical liberalism. Yes, classical liberalism is the ideal. But is limited government really even remotely possible today?
Modern conservatism looks to reduce government’s role, and modern liberalism looks to expand government’s role. Limited government makes for a good platitude, but it simply isn’t realistic. Reducing the size of government is really all conservatives can hope for today.
If you’re going to defend the constitution, you also have to defend the Congressional power to suspend Habeus and not claim doing so would be an attack on the Constitution
Article I Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
Clause 2 Habeas Corpus
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Yes, but politically its likely not attainable. First, we would have to either repeal the 17th amendment or change the make-up of the Senate. I don’t believe repealing the 17th is possible, but it may be possible to have the legislatures appoint a 3rd Senator from each state and require super majority votes in the Senate to pass a bill. No law that does not have the support of 3/5’s of the states should ever be made law. The federal government is too big for 50%+1 to rule.
We also need to revamp the house. it should not have 435 members, it should have about 1500 members. A Representative with a million voters in his district isn’t representing “the people” he’s representing a constituency.
Let the house meet electronically (except for committee hearings or impeachments) and the Senate in person. Let them all be there in person for joint resolutions like declarations of war.
