Conservatism Vs Classical Liberalism

What is the difference between Conservatism and Classical Liberalism? Ben Shapiro and author Yoram Hazony talk about where the two political philosophies diverge.

[alonsolpz]

The problem in America is that people call what is not liberalism liberalism. What Americans call liberalism is social liberalism which is a strand of liberalism.

[shakya]

Here in Europe, left consider liberalism as a right wing thing and almost as terrible as far-right. And you americans think liberalism = leftism, because some leftists have claimed that they were liberal. Liberalism isn't conservatism, far-right or leftism. Liberalism is a rich and old tradition on its own. Friedman for example was a liberal neither a conservative nor a leftist. On the economic side, of what i've seen many conservatives have the same goal to reduce the State power by cutting taxes, simplifying rules, limiting the State interventions into economy. But on the civil society side, liberals think the same as in the economic subject, freedom is their value, the only or essential (there is a wide range of liberalism schools) legitimacy of the State is to protect our natural rights, and consider humans as individuals with same rights. Your sexual orientation, skin's color, your political ideology, what do you say or do, none of that is the State business. For some it seems closer to leftist on that aspect but that's not the same. Leftists want to reduce the freedom of speech for fighting "hate speech" (who will define what is a hate speech ?) and "fake news" (who will define what is the Truth and what is not ?). They don't see humans as unique individuals but as determined groups such as "blacks" or "whites" and invented a concept to continue their fight against racism with their fictionary "systemic racism". While Liberals don't judge people by their race and are against any kind of discrimination. It includes "positive" discrimination. And for sure against the censorship of the freedom of speech that leftists do.

[cybzer]

What do you mean classical liberals can't answer that question? It's been answered by people regardless of their political stance. It's not even a political problem. It's a logical problem. Open borders allows the potential of immigrants and criminals to abuse it. A mass flood of people and increasing population can cause housing problems and homelessness. National and state resources being depleted where those resources could have been to put to better use. Politicians using open borders and immigrants as a driving narrative to further their agenda. Social culture unable to be assimilated causes a division in society.

Imagine letting anyone live in your house for free, only difference is this is on a much, much larger scale.

You don't need to be a conservative or classical liberal, or whatever side you're on. You only need to see the faulty logic in the situation.

[carpetsnake]

Classical liberalism comes from conservatism?

Locke lived in the mid 1600 Burke mid 1700
Try again

[michaelestala]

Girl: I’m a liberal, atheist, feminist.
Guy: (trying to impress) I failed high school too!

[kaylacolgan]

I left the liberal party back in late 2016.

[Chipwhitley]

This whole video is nothing but a Straw-man argument. He claims they cannot explain boarders. Yet he cannot substantiate that claim.

[prodigalson]

As a Classical Liberal I have no problem using conservatives as a stepping stone back to True rule of law under the Constitution of these United States as per the Declarationist Philosophy which is so imperative to sustainability.

[claytonsmith]

How on earth does Classical Liberalism and a sense of universal truth in individual liberty lead to imperialism? Isn’t respecting the sovereignty of foreign governments a founding tenant of “libertarianism”?

[noneyobusiness]

I would like to see the guy from crash course come on here

[harambeexpress]

I disagree with his objection to Classical Liberalism.
Under classical liberalism the answer is obvious. Borders and controlled immigration are needed because the government has a responsibility to protect the *existing citizenry* as they are uniquely placed neutrally among the people and also with a monopoly on the use of force. This is the issue with confusing Classical Liberalism with Libertarianism. Libertarianism says that there is basically no role for government, however Classical Liberalism says "hold up, the government should help protect the citizens - but the rest is up to the citizens".

However, I think his comments applied to contemporary American liberalism are accurate enough. For example, the moral relativist and globalist (progressive) American liberal would say about "the people coming into the country are just as valid as I am". There is no protection mindset there at all, except that they might cry out childishly for daddy government *after* they vote in the problems.

As for the connection to religion - there's no rule that you can't acknowledge judeo-christian values and the effect they had on the development of law. From my reading many enlightenment thinkers were religious or had religious upbringings - but objected to the the tyranny of a religious state. That's pretty sensible.

[Chipwhitley]

Being a Libertarian, doesn't require dropping religion, nor does it require being in opposition to boarders.

[carpetsnake]

The founding feathers ripped off Locke not Burke

Life liberty and property- Locke
Life liberty and pursuit of happiness- Jefferson

[Energysunn]

I like to think of myself as a classical liberal. I can answer that question easily because to me classical liberalism is not an ideology that allows for open borders. A nation is not a nation if it can’t control whose coming into it.

My problem with conservatism has always been that it pretends to care about liberty and government of law not by men, which are classical liberal ideals, they get my hopes up for conservatives, then when I actually talk to conservatives I realise they’re still willing to sacrifice people’s liberties for things they deem to be more important than it...

Classical liberals like me really don’t have room nowadays on the political spectrum. Pretend to be conservatives and you realise that you’re not one of them. Actually go by the term liberal and people associate you with socialism and political correctness 😐

[theshakter]

Classical Liberalism - Let's Stand against Tree cutting and Fox hunting.

Todays Liberalism - Let's that against anything and everything.

[Sepdet]

Was looking forward to this when I saw the title. Ended up very disappointed as he did not give a good definition of classical liberalism IMO. Just because one calls oneself a classical liberal doesn't automatically mean you support open borders any more than being a libertarian does. Plenty of folks in both camps who still believe in the primacy of the nation state. Not a fan if ideological purism as that implies there is an authority on a given topic within an ideology. That's not at all individualistic, it ends up being inadvertently collectivist.

[shinHis]

I don't know what you'd talk about but can you get Roger Scruton on the show Ben? I find his talks really thought-provoking.

[justcallmebookworm]

It's kind of strange watching all these people struggle to understand what Classical Liberalism is.

[eliefeinstein]

Doesn’t social contract theory provide the necessary link between classical liberalism and nationalism? In other words, yes, classical liberalism begins from the proposition of liberty, but it does allow restrictions on liberty when those restrictions are justified (e.g., by contract). Why cannot a group of individuals contract for a system of governance? Taken to its logical conclusion, Yoram seems to be saying that classical liberalism collapses into anarchy.

[d.b.levitt]

I have been thinking about this very concept for the past week!