The Problem With 'Classical Liberals'

On this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop take a look at "classical liberalism," a term that has come to mean a variety of different things in recent years. What is the history of classical liberalism? Is classical liberalism distinct from radical libertarianism? Is it ultimately a moderate form of leftism? Ryan and Tho address these questions and more during the Mises Institute's Fall Fundraising Campaign.

PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off

[johnwilhelm]

Just listened to it a second time while painting... This is just so good! So well done...

[The_Schizoid_Man]

Somehow the word liberal was so diluted that we needed to start calling ourselves libertarians. Now it feels like the word libertarian has been diluted so much that it’s been co-opted into something weak with no balls. Thanks Cato. Fuck it, I’m a liberal and an anarchist. Remember, if we let them take our words we would just be severed generations without a label to link us together. Don’t let that happen.

[nickb]

I'm glad you talked about Mill, I read "On Liberty" and thought, "What is this nonsense?"....I was disappointed to say the least.

[hoppeanofasgard]

A few things come to mind about this topic:

1. Libertarianism while mostly being used as a term to describe classical liberalism or liberalism as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries once the left took over the term has a couple of different incarnations. incarnations such as minarchism and anarcho capitalism and the various different takes on anarcho capitalism. strictly minarchist libertarianism would be classically liberal but America was never AnCap and classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith never had a fully fleshed out idea how to run a society like that, so in a sense classical liberalism was a precursor to libertarianism.

2. There's two schools of thought of classical liberalism, one being property based, think of the works of John Locke for example, but then there was this more loosey goosy sort of interpretation of it where yea, property was important but many classical liberals wanted to refrain from putting it in the constitution as a right and instead just opted for some vague notion of happiness, life and liberty, of course to the more advanced libertarian philosopher we know that our very lives are dependent upon owning at least some forms of property, that our bodies them selves are owned by us and that can never be taken away, but these guys from the 19th century weren't that far along yet, and I think there was probably always a balanceing act between rights that the powers that be wanted respected no matter how philosophically inclined they might have been, vs the power they hold. Libertarianism by it's very nature limits congressional power, and even judicial power to some degree, in fact in a libertarian society, a society truly governed by laws rather than unchecked power, laws would be contractual and I doubt a whole legislative body would be necessary to put those laws on paper. Judges while still necessary probably would be restricted to arbitration and sentencing, sentencing that by an large would be mostly just restitution based provided the convicted wasn't deemed to be an on going danger to society at large. This is in stark contrast to todays judges who have almost unlimited ability to issue subpoena, gag orders, order alimony and several other things that are, well, just un libertarian.

In short, libertarianism is classical liberalism perfected but to say it's 100% identical with the classical liberalism of old is probably wrong, classical liberalism laid the foundation to creating libertarianism and libertarianism couldn't have become a thing without it.

one other thing of note is austrian economics didn't really exist until about 1880 or so, so depending on whether you consider Austrian economics as crucial to the completeness of libertarian thought it could further diverge from classical liberalism. That being said the classical economics of Adam Smith, Banking standards such as Scottish free banking and the gold standard held in America for so many years and the reasons for having it were pretty similar to the what Austrians would describe and recommend of and for an economy, the biggest difference primarily is with in the business cycle not to much in basic analysis.

[TheRealBrook]

Strangely, the closest purity of volunteerism and laissez faire that I have ever seen was in repressive states. Visited Siem Reap, Cambodia for a week. The communist government had recently allowed citizens to participate in free trade. There was a vitality I have never seen. Shops were open nearly 24 hours, a blacksmith across the street from the hotel was welding night and day, tourism was thriving. There were no traffic laws. Elephants, tuk-tuks, motorcycles, rickshaws, wheelbarrows, vans, cars, monkeys and dogs running in and out, etc were all using the same road with turn abouts and there was a constant flow with zero traffic jams. I will never forget how well the voluntary organized chaos worked.

[simonw]

Great episode guys. Its refreshing to see more people responding to the "post libertarians" who keep publicly trashing us everywhere.

[TheRealBrook]

Family reunion passing the salad around the table and taking turns labelling our political views. Republican, Republican, Democrat, Classical Liberal, Democrat, Republican, ... "What is a classical liberal?" asks my sister in law. My cousin chimes in, "A Republican without morals." Hmmmm. "I prefer to describe it as laissez faire, minarchist, strong property rights beginning with your own body, anti-nation building, Adam Smith and John Locke, " I reply.

[ThomasJJacksonVA]

As RM and TB mention, the Ralph Raico series on Liberty is worth listening to. Besides being helpful in explaining all this material, Raico is very funny.

[MrTimotheousWard]

Old Molyneuax that's a name I haven't heard in a long time

[johnwilhelm]

That was superb! Please stock up on Mises t-shirts in Blue, size medium. I don't remember if I'm thinking actually about the Austrian School version...

[TheOrphicLyre]

I don't call leftists "liberals". Never have. My brain doesn't accept the idea you can conflate totalitarianism with freedom.
Liberalism means small government, free people, property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of association.
It can't mean socialism. Socialism was always opposed to it. Ask Marx. Or Hitler. Both opposed Liberalism.

[truecatholic]

You are incorrect about this. A counterexample is found in the legal history book, "The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America."

[alistairproductions]

I don't think they're even trying to co opt classical liberal on the left, but they probably say "classic liberal" of something occasionally to try to describe how they're more jfk-ish than some kind of newer leftist. They probably don't even know the term ever even meant anything other than that but maybe unknowingly heard it so they throw it into their speech just out of convenience, so in that sense it's barely even a conspiracy i bet. Still kind of irritating. But realistically it makes very little difference seeing as even fewer people know the term classical liberal than know who Ron Paul is, who is a small percentage of people already

[pricecontrols]

My mind has to drift back to Classical liberals vs. the Church. Which equates to the inevitable evolution of classical liberals. Without classical liberals, the State is the Church. Liberals do NOT like this label because some classical liberals are Christians and will argue for a separation of Church and STATE, which inevitably leads to LEFTISTS wanting to co-op Liberals, which is inevitable as most Leftists in practice behave more like Atheists than Liberals or Christians, but will co-op both to attain their ends.

The Church has already DEFINED what a non-believer in Christ sounds like, so even if a church "leader" attempts to move his church congregation toward the political ideals of his political masters, those who understand Christianity will budge from their positions. Classical Liberals on the flip side, HAVE to budge when the Leftists apply pressure as "Liberal" or "Classical Liberal" is still somewhat fluid.

You can not CAPTURE the word, term, or ideology known as "Liberal"; all you can do is refer to its origins. I'm also hearing from and reading people who claim to identify as Libertarian, and some of these people want "Price Controls, " or they want the State to do something about those "evil people" over there.

On the flipside most people leave the Church because they find it either too restrictive, complicated, or Boring, which is why it's hard for any political group to take ownership of it. If I named my political party "The Christians, " that would alienate a large segment of the population who have their own agenda. But if I say I'm a Liberal or a Conservative, that could mean a bunch of things.


A "Conservative" based on what time period? Whenever Leftists want to spook people about Islam, they refer to them as "conservatives." Whenever Islam helps their cause they refer to the followers of Islam as "minorities." If you're a creationist, you inherently look at politicians and political people as SCUM

Because you have a fixed diety in which you serve, and if the Republic was designed correctly based on religious ideals, the best politicians are those who do little to NOTHING.

Christians already have Jesus Christ, any other "leader" is basically a figurehead that exists for symbolic purposes. I actually find it rather pathetic that we Christians prop up these leaders in the first place.

I'd personally prefer it if Christians WITHDRAW their economic abilities when they come to the realization that the beneficiaries of their knowledge and goodwill are hostile to them. So for myself, I think all Christians should seek to ABOLISH taxes and return to an HONEST monetary system. If you're a follower of Jesus Christ, you've already got a glimpse via the New Testament of what the STATE will do to our Savior; when given the chance, so why are we mindlessly repeating the process?


Liberals, as we all know, are still looking for someone to evolve their thinking. It is pathetic to classical liberals to look to a politician for leadership, as a politician is inherently compromised. In closing, you'd have to expect Classical Liberals to be co-oped anything based on Liberty or Freedom will be co-oped for nefarious purposes, which is why I think Christian Libertarians/Christian Classical Liberals should point out right off the bat that they're NOT atheists. I personally would prefer this, I hate listening to a classical Liberal that I figured out later is also an atheist. Nothing annoys me more than that.

Atheists don't believe in HEAVEN; if there's no afterlife, you have permission to make up your morality as you go along. Whereas if you're a Christian and you're voicing your opinion, those who know the word of God can value you based on your positions regarding the Holy book. If there's a "Gay Church" as an example, I say "thank you" to those Gay church members because you've told me everything I need to know about you; now I don't have to waste time debating or arguing with you on matters I find substantive.

If you're a Liberal Atheist, your moral compass is whatever you want it to be, and that could include having Far Left political aspirations. Some Libertarians may lean towards imagining that liberties and freedoms are temporary. If I know a Liberal is an atheist, I'd be prepared to consume their views in the proper manner.

[leewaaks]

Someone told me that Mises censors comments on these videos—even civil ones. Is this true? If so, that’s disappointing.

[lauramcconney]

We don't use a dictionary to learn the meaning of the English language anymore! We just Google everything! Laziness has made it easy to change the meaning and indoctrinate the young!!! We are becoming the 2nd tower of Babel!!! 😂

[ChucksExotics]

Politics needs to be founded on ethnos, not liberty or property etc... not that I'm against those in some form.

But even though good libertarians who I respect will say, that of course libertarianism is compatible with whatever free association people want, ethnic, religious, etc... That still misses the problem.

Liberty and property are not the true justification for political action. The reason for all political action is duty and loyalty to ones family, and extended family (ethnos).

Both property and liberty can only arise out of the relationships of family, and therefore are prior to those concepts. Starting with owning your own body as property as Hopper does, is a false starting point.

The starting point for all politics is the fact that you are born into a family of people who have certain duties to you and you to them.

For example, does it make sense to say that a man alone on Pluto "owns Pluto." It's kind of meaningless. To own something is an agreement with other people for exclusive use.

Ownership and property are inherently social. And every person is born at minimum into exactly one unique set of social arrangements, their family.

Family & ethnos are the basis for property and liberty, and the basis of all politics.

[gregdaugherty]

The evaded principle at the heart of this issue is: capitalism versus socialism; freedom versus statism; individualism vs collectivism. The evasion is perpetrated through the widespread use of the undefined and infinitely malleable terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism.” Although these terms, at one time, had specific meanings, both have become so vague and flexible to mean whatever the political class wants them to mean - making them worse than useless.

In practice, “Liberals” are thoroughgoing collectivists attempting to hide their statism with a word that still manages to hold positive connotations from its enlightenment past. Conservatives are a slightly less virulent variety of collectivist who, in their best moments, slow the pace of the “Liberal” march to statism.

The term “Classical Liberal” is an attempt to identify the enlightenment political philosophy that connects capitalism and reason. “Classical Liberals” reject the Libertarian label for a very practical reason: Libertarians do not ground their politics in human reason, but rather, espouse an out-of-context allegiance to the principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force - with no reference to the philosophical basis of the principle. The most illustrative example of this irrational thought process is the anarcho-capitalist movement within the Libertarian camp. Anyone who asserts that anarchy and capitalism can coexist demonstrates a lack of understanding of either.

[KaplenPayne]

Why do us atheists get blamed for the short comings of religion?