Dave Rubin & Steve Davies: The Difference Between Classical Liberals & Libertarians

Source:The Rubin Report talking to Learn Liberty Professor Steve Davies.

Source:The New Democrat 

I'm cool with being labeled either a Classical Liberal or a Liberal. Just don't call me a Libertarian, if you what's good for you! ( Ha, ha ) I'm a Jack Kennedy/Tom Jefferson Liberal Democrat because I believe in the things that Dave Rubin and Steve Davies point out in this video, but I believe there is a a what I call decentralized limited government role in seeing that people who for whatever reasons especially adults who don't have the skills that allow for them to get a good job and be able to be self-sufficient economically, get an opportunity to get those skills so they can get themselves a good job and not need public assistance at all. As well as short-term financial relief while they're improving themselves economically.

As well as public education as long as it's run by the local government's so everyone is guaranteed at least a shot at getting themselves a good education. And not denied an education simply because private schools don't want to teach them. I believe people should be able to go the the best public that is available for them and if parents want to send their kids to a private school, that is their choice. Just as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for their choices. Instead of forcing kids to go to school simply because of where they live, instead of what's the best school for them.

I believe in national defense to protect the country from foreign invaders. I believe in public law enforcement to protect the public from predators, but not to protect people from themselves. I believe America should be working with our allies to keep our peace, but also to see that the world is as safe as possible for freedom and liberal democracy to survive.

And a regulatory state that is limited to only protecting consumers and workers from predators. Not to try to run private business and make private businesses semi-public utilities that are only privately run in name only.

I'm not anti-government, but anti-big government. I don't want government trying to run our personal and economic lives for us. Which is what the Far-Left and Far-Right have in common. They don't want people to be able to make their own decisions and don't trust and believe in individualism. The Far-Left Socialists and Communists, want big government to manage people's economic affairs for them. And in Communists case, they want big government to manage people's personal lives for them as well as their economic lives. The Christian-Right as well as Nationalists and in some cases as we're seeing in America as well as Europe as well now, Christian-Nationalists who want big government to manage people's personal lives. And don't want people who don't look like them and believe in the same things as they do to even be around and be allowed to live their own lives.

Where I separate from Libertarians is that I'm not an Anarchist. What you get from Libertarians today especially online is this believe that government in any sense is just corrupt, incompetent, unconstitutional, and that it's being existence in any form is enslaving the people. That taxation is theft even though being a citizen of a country is basically like being the member of a club. You pay for the services that you consume as condition of being a member of that club. And for whatever reasons Libertarians today don't seem to understand that.

I'm not anti-government or pro-small government. If I had it my way government would be a lot smaller than what Socialists in any form want and bigger than what so-called Libertarians want. I'm pro-limited government and limiting government to doing only what we need it to do. So in that sense I guess I would a moderate compared with Socialists and Libertarians, but to me that is just about being a Liberal. Taking positions based on the best available evidence at hand. Instead of taking all of my positions based on government either has all of the answers to solving problems or none of the answers to problem solving.
Source:The Rubin Report

Learn Liberty: Dave Rubin Interviewing Deirdre McCloskey: Marxism in Two Minutes

Source: The Rubin Report-

Source:The New Democrat 

As I explained with communism last week and explaining what communism is, the basic definition of communism is that communism is the state owning the means of production in society. Someone who is a hard core Communist believes the state should own and manage the entire economy and that property rights and property ownership, are outlawed. In a true communist state people wouldn't even own their own homes or automobiles. No such thing as small businesses with people owning their own restaurants. All private property including businesses and personal property, would be owned by the national government. This is basically the basic definition of what is called Marxist/Communism.

According to Wikipedia, "Marxism has developed into many different branches and schools of thought, though now and there is no single definitive Marxist theory." Communism and Marxism, has developed into many aspects of a broader political philosophy and we don't know if Karl Marx himself ever went as far and developed his own political philosophy beyond his theories on economics.

When I think of Marxist/Communists today and going back to pre-Cold War is that people who do believe the state should own the means of production in society, but that there political philosophy goes beyond just economic policy. A Communist to me anyway and even so-called Democratic Socialists who perhaps aren't pure Communists and do have some democratic leanings with those leavings being more social democratic and collectivist, than liberal democratic and don't put much if any emphasis when it comes to individual rights and aren't fans of individualism at all, are people who see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and selfish. And therefor you need a big centralized national state to make most if not all the decisions for society. And to prevent people from being greedy and to think for themselves. As well as to develop opposition to the state.

My personal definition of a Communist or Marxist/Communist if you prefer, even though I don't believe we'll ever know what Karl Marx thought beyond economic policy, is someone who is anti-individual and pro-collectivist. Someone who is against individualism and pro-statism and collectivism. Sees personal autonomy and individualism as dangerous and believes once you give people the freedom to make their own decisions, they'll end up making bad decisions that the state will end up having to pay for. Or will make great decisions for themselves and end up doing much better than society as a whole which is what Communists view as selfish.

This definition of communism can be applied to more than just economic policy and property rights, but big government in general when it comes to the nanny state as well. But the political correctness movement on the Far-Left and Far-Right, that seeks to eliminate and censor free speech that they disagree with and find offensive. If you're asking me that would be my definition of a Communist. A and to a large extent Socialists in general. Even though Democratic Socialists to tend to be more democratic obviously and a believer in at least some individualism when it comes to private property and the right to privacy, and some personal autonomy.
Source:Learn Liberty

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- What is Communism?

Source: Learn Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

I believe Professor Howard Baetjer gave an accurate definition of communism as short and simple as it was. That communism is the common ownership of the means of production of society. But that can be interpreted in two ways.

One, that government owns the means of production of society. Which is generally how communism has been practiced. Look at North Korea today, look at Cuba up until ten years or so ago. Look at China up until about forty years ago. Look at the Soviet Union of Russia before they broke up. Look at the Eastern European Russian satellites during the Cold War.

Another way to look at common ownership of the means of production of society would be that the individuals themselves would own these things. The workers would own a piece of the company that they work for and you see that in what are called economic cooperatives where each worker literally owns a stake in the company that they work for. There are some economic cooperates ( or co-ops ) in America but this is not a common economic system in America or really anywhere else in the world.

But similar with democratic socialism ( the democratic wing of socialism ) communism is not just an economic idea or philosophy. And if you want to know what communism is and what Communists believe you have to look at Communists themselves and what they believe and look at communists government's in countries where communism is the governing philosophy.

My definition of communism is a belief that the state ( meaning the central government ) should be in charge of society and therefore run society on behalf of the people. That the only way society can be strong is if everyone is strong. Meaning that no one should and would have too much while others live without enough and of course no one should go without enough. That individual freedom and individualism, as well as private enterprise, are looked down upon. That people shouldn't be allowed to own things and create for themselves and instead everything should be shared for the common good of society. That the state should be in charge of everything and that there is no private ownership on behalf of the people to serve the people. And that there is no private dissent and competition that the state should have to deal with. No political opposition and private media.

There really aren't any countries left in the world other than North Korea that is purely a communist state. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba now has private enterprise in it. While the state still clamps down on personal freedom and political opposition. The same can be said about the People's Republic of China. Russia is still around but the Soviet Union is now gone. All the former Russian European satellites are now essentially democratic republics with private enterprise economies. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam now has private enterprise in their economy. And this is simply that communism doesn't work as an economic system and these countries were tired of trying to fund their centralized regimes with so many poor people in their countries and not producing enough revenue for their regimes. 

Source:Learn Liberty

Learn Liberty: The Rubin Report- Dave Rubin Interviewing Dan Carlin: We're All Liberals & Radicals

Source: Learn Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Dave Rubin and Dan Carlin on at least one thing here about political labels having lost their meanings and I would argue true meanings. I'm a Liberal because I believe in liberal democracy and its that simple. Individual rights, rule of law, equal rights, equal justice, equality of opportunity, limited government, free, fair and open elections, fiscal responsibility, strong but limited national defense, property rights.

But someone who believes in the opposites of many if not all of those things and not even believing in free speech and perhaps even a free press that is in private hands, along with having a lot socialist if not communist views on economic policy, will also call themselves a Liberal. People like talk show host Thom Hartmann who really is a Democratic Socialist if you bother to look at his politics instead of just automatically taking his word when he calls himself a Liberal, but he at least in the past has called himself a Liberal, but has called for state-control of the press.

The so-called liberal magazine Salon had an article in 2014 written by Fred Jerome calling for the nationalization of Fox News and other right wing media outlets because he believed there was too much of a right wing slant on the news.

Now who is the Liberal here? The man who advocates for liberal values and policies, or the people who call themselves Liberals, but advocate for Far-Left politics and positions and view people like Communists Fidel Castro Che Guevara, and the Neo-Communist regime in Venezuela as really good but misunderstood people. Perhaps they were treated badly as kids which is why they turned out like this, or its societies fault that they became authoritarian dictators.

When I see an apple and an orange, I'm going to call the apple an apple even if the orange calls them self an apple as well. Sometimes you need to believe your own ears and eyes over someone else's mouth. Facts matter and we should always take facts over someone else's propaganda. I partially agree with Dan Carlin on his second point that we're all Liberals. A lot of us are in America in the sense that Americans tend to believe in liberal democracy and values I just laid out and believe in both personal and economic freedom.

But if you're familiar with the over-caffeinated Millennial Generation and aging Baby Boomers who are still living in the 1960s culturally and mentally and still trying to take down the man (as they would put it) and destroy our inhumane, corrupt, corporate controlled private system, (as they would put it) they're not liberal all all, really. They can't take a joke and believe anything that offends them or people they claim to care about, should be censored and outlawed.

To go back to my previous points about Fidel and Che, the illiberal-left believes Castro and Guevara are good men. They believe in the Venezuelan Neo-Communist regime is a good honorable government trying to serve their people and eliminate corporate control. Even though they're arrested people simply for protesting against their regime. They believe the wrong country won the Cold War. And yet they get called Liberals by the lame stream media (to quote Sarah Palin) as Liberals, simply because the so-called mainstream media doesn't know what Liberals are and equates everyone on the Left as Liberals even if their politics are illiberal.

But again who are the Liberals here? The people who believe in liberal values, or the people who simply call themselves Liberals and are called Liberals by others? To go back to my point about facts matter, we should always believe our own ears and eyes overs someone's else's propaganda. Just because someone else labels them self something or is labeled something by someone else, doesn't make that true. Instead what you should do is your own research and look at their politics and see if that matches up with what they're self-proclaiming.
Source:Learn Liberty

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- 'Freedom of Speech: What is Your Opinion?'

Source:Learn Liberty- talking about free speech on college campuses.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Does free speech offend you? Do you believe that freedom of Speech gives you the freedom to speak your opinion? Learn more:Learn Liberty." 

From Learn Liberty

I believe college campus's perhaps especially in the Northeast, is the perfect place to ask people what they think about free speech. And perhaps requiring all college students to pass a course on free speech and the U.S. Constitution in order to graduate might also be a good idea. Because with what seems to be their lack of familiarity with both right now with 2-5 Millennial's now believing that free speech shouldn't protect people's rights to offend minorities and perhaps people in general.

We saw that in this video with one female student, but with another one saying he's against gun rights, but supports a person's freedom to offend. Which I thought was pretty interesting, because generally when someone is that far in one direction on one issue, they won't support freedom when it comes to another individual rights issue like speech. 

The only way you learn anything from anybody is for all of us to have that constitutional right to express ourselves. You learn what others think and what they know and don't know and they learn from you. You also learn things about yourself. Like where you do well and where you need to improve.

The only thing you get from fascism whether its Marxism on the Far-Left, or religious extremism on the Far-Right is what the central state approves of whether they're right or wrong. They'll only tell you what you what they want you to hear. 

Liberal democracy, liberal societies, liberal states, free societies, are not meant to be nice, or mean. They're meant to be free and meant to be real. You have the freedom over your own life and even what you say and what you think. But so does everyone else and we all have the right to tell others what we think about what they say. 

Learn Liberty: Professor Antony Davies- 'Who Favors More Freedom, Liberals or Conservatives?'

Source:Learn Liberty- Antony Davies talking about Liberals and Conservatives.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Prof. Antony Davies analyzes the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.  He then proposes an alternative method of viewing political issues, which looks at policies and their respective impact on individual freedom.  Prof. Antony Davies concludes that the conventional liberal/conservative dichotomy encourages us to ignore first principles, and hence, overlook contradictory views." 

From Learn Liberty

With this piece I'm going to look at the real and classic definitions of liberalism and conservatism and not how they're both been stereotyped and even rewritten by the mainstream media. And people who self-describe themselves as Liberals and Conservatives, but who are actually much further to the left and right.

From Wikipedia-

"Liberalism, a political philosophy founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.

Liberty, having to do with things like personal choice and self-government. People govern themselves and allowed to make their own choices. Equality, the idea that everyone should be able to live in freedom and have the liberty over their own lives. Not that everyone should have the exact same amount of money and personal property. Liberalism, is not a collectivist ideology like socialism. Liberals believe that people are entitled to liberty. The word liberal comes from liberty. Sounds nothing like socialist, or collectivist, or socialize."

The Wikipedia definition of liberty-

"Free-will and determinism. Again having to do with individual freedom and self-governance and self-ownership, which I covered last week and the week before on this blog. Nothing in here about big centralized government, where a big state would collect most of the economic resources in the country so everyone is economically equal and taken care of. Liberalism, is not about the liberty for people not to take personal responsibility over their own lives and be taken care of by big government. The opposite is true, because liberalism is not socialism."

The Wikipedia definition of conservatism-

"A political philosophy based on conserving social institutions. Preserving tradition and a traditional way of doing things and a way of living. In other words conserving what already is and how things have always been done. Conservatism, is about moving slowly, but gradually. To take it one day at a time, so to speak and not be quick to react and to reform."

Now when it comes to conservatism, are you talking about conservatism in a cultural sense, a religious sense, or a political sense? You could even talk about conservatism in an athletic sense. Since this is about Liberal vs Conservative, I'm interested in conservatism in a political sense. 

When I hear the term Conservative Republican in America, I think of someone who is interested in conserving the republic. Our federal republic and federalist form of government. Conserving the U.S. Constitution, not trying to rewrite it or change it, certainly not dramatically, because they already approve of it. The whole notion of constitution amendments is anti-conservative, because constitutional amendment are reformist, which tend to go against conservative and even drastic attempts to get one's policy objectives through government.

Now based on the actual definitions of liberalism and conservatism, I would have to say that Liberals believe in more freedom. More personal choice and autonomy, because we're less interested in tradition and the status-quo and tend not to take the view that we shouldn't be able to do certain things individually, because they haven't been done before. 

The whole U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, are the most liberal documents ever written, because they are based on individual rights and liberty, self-governance and self-ownership. That people should be able to make their own personal choices and then live with consequences of those choices.

Learn Liberty: Professor Dan Russell: Self-Ownership & The Right to Say No

Source:Learn Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Professor Dan Russell on a couple things here. The only people we actually own are ourselves and that property rights extend to ourselves and our bodies. For example, we as adults can have sex with anyone we choose, as long as they are adults and they consent to it. But we don't have a right to rape people and no one has a right to rape us. I'm not pro-choice on practically everything because I'm a big fan of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, pornography, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, abortion, etc, because I'm a big fan of all of those activities. The opposite is true, I just don't believe that just because I don't personally approve of them that others shouldn't have the same freedom of choice as I have to make those decisions for themselves.

Freedom of choice, is not freedom of force. It just means we have the right to make our own personal choices as long as we aren't hurting any innocent person with what we're doing. And then we are personally responsible for the choices that we make. Now where government can come in is to put out all of the best available information about all of these activities for free people can make the best personal decisions for themselves as possible. And not bail people out when people are personally irresponsible with their own lives and force responsible people to pay for the bad decisions of irresponsible people. Freedom of choice, is not just right for people to say yes when it comes to activities and deciding to do things. It is the right for people to make their own decisions. Yes or no and then they're responsible for their own decisions.

Professor Peter Jaworski: 'What Does Liberty Really Mean?'

Source:Learn Liberty- and the Statue of Lady Liberty.

Source:The New Democrat

""Liberty 101: What Does Liberty Really Mean?" by the Institute for Humane Studies. Prof. Peter Jaworski says that libertarians focus on political liberty over other types of liberty. What does he mean by “political liberty”? Why is this the priority?" 

From CNX

From Wikipedia- "Liberty in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics liberty consists of the political social and political freedoms enjoyed by all citizens."

The first time I've actually seen that on Wikipedia, but that is pretty close to the liberal definition of liberty. The ability for one to have self-determination over them self. To chart their own course in life and make their own decisions about themselves. It means the freedom for people to be themselves short of hurting innocent people with their freedom. And then being held personally responsible for their own decisions for good and bad. 

The liberal definition of liberty covers both economic and social policy. Someone can run their own company essentially anyway they want to, short of hurting their own employees and customers. Again, we're talking about liberty from a liberal, not libertarian vantage point. When it comes to social policy, liberty is the ability for one to make their own decisions over their own personal affairs, short of hurting innocent people intentionally, or otherwise.

Again, we're talking about liberty in a liberal society, a free society, where people have the right to self-govern. But we don't have the right to hurt people unless in self-defense. But liberty is too expensive if it doesn't involve both personal responsibility and rule of law. And without rule of law, liberty becomes anarchism. 

The extreme version of liberalism is not socialism, or Marxism. People who believe socialism and Marxism, are the extreme versions of liberalism, don't understand liberalism. The extreme version liberalism is anarcho-libertarianism and anarchism. Where people can essentially do whatever they want, because there aren't any consequences that come with their decisions. Short of someone getting back at you for robbing them, or assaulting them, or whatever the case. So a Liberal believes in both liberty and rule of law. They go together like meet and potatoes, cheese and bread, whatever combination you want to come up with.

Name the social issue including gambling and prostitution which are also social issues, I'm probably pro-choice on it as a Liberal. Just as long as it comes to rule of law including a regulatory state. Not to run the enterprise or activity, but to protect consumers and employees from predators. And it doesn't involve legalizing predatory behavior. Like murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. 

Liberty, is the ability one to live their own life short of hurting an innocent person with how they live. Not the liberty to hurt innocent people intentionally, or otherwise. 

Conservatives and Libertarians, at least in the classical sense, have a similar definition of liberty as I do. Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists, not such big fans of freedom of choice, even with responsibility. And have more of a collective government-centric idea of liberty. But one of the great things about living in a federalist liberal democracy, is we get to make these decisions for ourselves.

Learn Liberty: Alex Kreit: Don't be a Victim

Source:The New Democrat  

I guess Alex Kreit is saying that "we shouldn't be a drug war victim unlike the millions of Americans who are already drug victims". Since this wasteful authoritarian paternalistic bogus War on Drugs was created by the Nixon Administration in 1971. And has been enforced by every other American president both Republican and Democratic since some forty-three years after this so-called war on what people put into their own bodies has been launched.

LearnLiberty: Matt Zwolinski: 'Social Justice and Its Critics'

Source:Learn Liberty- Professor Matt Zqolinski.

"For many, the concept of social justice means equalizing wealth or opportunities for people. Many classical liberals and libertarians reject the idea of government-directed social justice. Some reject it because they think it is impractical or even immoral. Others reject it because they believe the idea is conceptually confused. Prof. Matt Zwolinski explains that the primary problem in the social justice concept is that free societies lack a central distributor to ensure wealth, jobs, opportunities, resources, or other goods are distributed "equally" or "fairly." Libertarians and classical liberals find that the only meaningful concept of social justice is one focused on the legal and economic rules of societies. Many think this focus is incompatible with the political left's concept of social justice. Stay tuned to the next LearnLiberty video by Prof. Zwolinski to find out why he disagrees." 

From Learn Liberty 

"Social justice refers to a fair and equitable division of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society. Originally a religious concept, it has come to be conceptualized more loosely as the just organization of social institutions that deliver access to economic benefits. It is sometimes referred to as "distributive justice."

1

2

 

Social justice is a broad term, and there are many variations in how advocates apply the perspective. However, social determinants like the racial wealth gap or inequitable access to health care feature heavily in social justice analysis. Some applications related to social justice, such as critical race theory, have become a battleground for American politics." 

From Ivestopedia

Learn Liberty: Antony Davies- 'What Can We Cut to Balance the Budget'

Source:Learn Liberty- Professor Antony Davies giving a little lecture about the Federal budget.

"If the U.S. government cut all government services except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and payments on the debt, federal spending would still outpace revenues. Prof. Antony Davies argues that there are not specific cuts that will enable government to balance the budget. He says, "Nothing less than a redesign will solve this problem." That redesign should begin by determining what the proper role of government is." 

From Learn Liberty

To use hyper-partisan, left-wing Democratic language but do it in a paraphrase: we can't literally balance the Federal budget on the backs of poor people. Even if you like that idea, the money simply isn't there. 

The non-Social Security-Medicare-Medicaid, social welfare budget is around 50 billion-dollars, in a Federal budget of about 4 trillion-dollars. We have an annual budget deficit of over a trillion-dollars today. 

You could eliminate the entire non-Social Security-Medicare-Medicaid budget and programs, and still be 900 billion-dollars short of balancing the Federal budget. Antony Davies didn't use this language in his video, but that's essentially what he's saying here.

Learn Liberty: Professor Daniel J. D'Amico- 'US Prison Population: The Largest in the World'

Source:Learn Liberty- Professor John D'Amico talking about American prisons.

"The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world—more even than China or Russia. Prof. Daniel J. D'Amico explains that as of 2010 more than 1.6 million people were serving jail sentences in America. Professor D'Amico suggests that "prisons are not what we think about when we think of America, and they shouldn't have to be."  According to D'Amico, a free country should not have 1.6 million people in prison, and a fiscally responsible country cannot afford to. As Prof. D'Amico points out, it is time for Americans to recognize that the U.S. criminal justice system is desperately in need of reform." 

From Learn Liberty

Even though the United States boasts about being a liberal democracy and to a large extent it is and as a Liberal Democrat I'm proud of that, we have about 2 million people who don't live in liberty. Americans who are incarcerated and a lot of people are in prison or under some type of public supervision because they deserve to be, but a lot of those same people who are incarcerated are partly as a result of society. 

We have a lot of Americans who come from bad homes, weren't raised correctly, stuck going to bad schools and as a result of these things end up dropping out of school and falling into wrong crowds. But the lack of quality education, that I believe at least is one contributor to our high poverty rate, is just on factor that leads to our high prison population. 

America still has too many of what Professor Milton Friedman called bad laws, where we end up sending people to prison who really aren't a threat to anyone, except for perhaps themselves, like with the so-called War On Drugs, which is a major contributor our Prison Industrial Complex. Ot we send people to prison who could do their time in county jail or in halfway houses, supervised community service, instead of looking at 10 plus years in a state prison where they'll learn nothing except how to survive their prison sentence and become a more successful criminal.

America only needs more prisons because we keep sending people to prison who don't need to be there. We need prisons for hardcore criminals, especially violent felons, people who represent a real threat to either our physical safety or our economy. But it's a waste of tax dollars to send people to prison who are guilty of nothing other than perhaps hurting themselves.

Learn Liberty: Steve Davies- 'Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism'

Source:Learn Liberty- Dr. Steve Davies giving a lecture at Bryn Mawr College about classical liberalism.

"Lecture until 52:43, then Q&A.  From the IHS Vault: Dr. Davies shows how classical liberal ideas grew as an intellectual movement in  the seventeenth century and gradually gained popular support. This rise of political ideas based on free markets and individual liberty achieved several notable political goals in the 19th century, such as abolition of slavery, extension of the franchise, and freer international trade. 

Filmed in 2006 at the IHS summer seminar "Advanced Studies in Freedom" at Bryn Mawr College. Produced by Inextinguishable Productions." 

From Learn Liberty 

To sort of movie Dr. Davies lecture up a bit: pre-New Deal in the 1930s or even 1920s, people who were called Liberals, were people who believed in limited government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility, equality under law, equal justice under law, personal and economic freedom, personal responsibility, the rule of law, decentralization of government, and other values, but this is what it meant to be a Liberal. 

It's really not up until the start of the Cold War in the 1940s and 50s when Socialist, Communist, socialism, and communism, became so unpopular in America (and for very good reasons) where you saw American leftists who in the 1930s probably would've been proud to be called Socialists or Social Democrats, at least, started adopting liberal and progressive to define their politics. 

So the reason why we have classical liberal versus modern liberal, is because American leftists (closeted Socialists) have been very successful in convincing millions of Americans, especially the mainstream media, that liberal is not about liberty and progressive is not about progress, but that liberal is actually about left-wing version of total equality and protection from government. 

Just about everywhere else in the developed world, liberal is actually considered Center-Right, not Center-Left or Left. But in America thanks to the closeted Socialists and mainstream media in this country, liberal is considered left-wing. But not my me, I've always self-described my personal politics as liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) because I believe in the defense of individual liberty.

Learn Liberty: Aeon Skoble- 'Democracy, Tyranny, and Liberty'

Source:Learn Liberty- Aeon Skoble, from Learn Liberty.

"Do democracies promote freedom? According to Prof. Aeon Skoble, it is definitely possible for democracies to promote freedom, but it is not a guarantee. This is due to a few flaws inherent in democratic systems: 

1) Majority belief in something does not necessarily mean that it's true. 

2) Majorities are capable of being just as tyrannical as kings

3) Historically, democracies have elected tyrannical leaders.

If freedom is the primary value of a society, democracy might still be of use so long as there are boundary conditions on the democratic process that protect the rights of the individual. 

Libertarianism Explained: Democracy, Tyranny, and Liberty presented by Learn Liberty. Learn More:Learn Liberty." 

From Learn Liberty

When deciding what type of country you want to have, you need to know what type of government you are going to have. And what's the relationship going to be between lets say the Federal Government and the state or provincial and local government's and you need a national constitution for that. 

Once you figure out what type of government you're going to have, then need to decide what type of country you are going to have as far as how government relates with its people. What's legal and illegal basically how the people can live their lives and how they can interact with other people. Basically what the rights if any do the people have in the country. 

If you want a form of government and country where there's a large amount of individual freedom, then as a Liberal and someone who believes in individual freedom, I would suggest a liberal democracy. But it can't stop with democracy because there are several forms of democracy. So you need to know what type of democracy you want to have. 

And again I would suggest a democracy that guarantees the most amount of individual freedom to figure out what type of country you are going to have. And how government relates to the people and how much ability if any people have to live their own lives. And what's the responsibility if any, that government has in relating with its people. 

There's what's called a social democracy, where people have a lot of individual freedom as far as how they live their lives socially, but where economic freedom is somewhat limited, because the state plays a large role in the economy and I would use Sweden as a perfect example of this. 

Then there's authoritarian  democracy (no, that's not an Oxymoron) where people are essentially free to live their lives but where they only have a limited amount of freedom. (Not limited amount of government) And I would use Turkey as an example of this. And then there's majoritarian democracy where essentially the majority rules over the minority and can essentially make people do what they want. Where minority rights aren't well-respected. And I would use America pre-civil rights Laws of the 1960s as an example of that. 

And then there's my favorite form of democracy what's called liberal democracy, where the people have the individual liberty to live their own lives essentially as they see fit, as long as they are not hurting anyone with their freedom. And America now would be my example of that, even though I believe we should have more individual liberty, but thats a different post.

A lot of people believe especially Conservatives and Libertarians, that a republic is the best way to guarantee individual liberty and to protect minority rights. But there are plenty examples of republics that aren't democracy's but authoritarian republics. And even have dictators running their government. Syria is a perfect example of this, so would China and North Korea or Cuba. So republics aren't the way to guarantee individual liberty. But a constitutional republic in the form of a liberal democracy is they way to do that.