Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna: The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

Source: Libertarianism.Org-

Source:The New Democrat

With this piece I'm going to separate liberalism where I am on the Center-Left of the American political spectrum, from not just Marxism/Communism, but what's called classical liberalism or what and most other people at least today call libertarianism.

Liberalism or liberal democracy, is about individual rights, equal rights, civil rights, equal justice, equal opportunity and yes limited government. Liberals aren't anti-government which is what a lot of modern Libertarians seem to be today. Liberals just don't want big government running people's lives for them and replace individualism with a big central government. And even using big government to try to tell people what they should think and how they can talk with other people. What language is acceptable and so-forth.

Liberalism is the ultimate color, race, ethnic, and gender-blind society. Because it believes in individualism and people should be treated exactly as that as individuals. And don't believe people should be rewarded or punished based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Unlike Socialists even Democratic Socialists and Communists today, who believe minorities should be rewarded over majorities, because of their race and ethnicity and they would simply argue because European-Americans especially men were rewarded because of their race, ethnicity, and gender in the past. And it's time for racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds should be reward based on those factors today.

Whether you want to call them Marxists, Socialists, or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists, Socialists today have very different views from Liberals and don't think liberalism and liberal democracy goes far enough in seeing that the needs of the society and public are met. And don't trust individualism and freedom, opportunity, and even education for the masses, enough to see that everyone's needs are met. And believe you need a big centralized government and perhaps just one government for the entire society, to be used to meet the needs of that masses. And believe that individual freedom and individualism, even the ability for people to think and speak for themselves, as dangerous. Because they see it as the freedom to make mistakes that society will have to pay for. And for the rich will just richer and everyone else will be left behind.

When you're talking about liberalism versus socialism and communism, you're talking about individualism versus collectivism and even statism. Liberals trust educated individuals to be able to self-govern themselves and meet their own needs and be able to take care of themselves. With a limited government to regulate how people interact with each other, but not how we govern ourselves. Socialists and Communists, put their faith in government especially the central state, to see that needs of the masses are taken care and no one is left behind and has to go without. When you're comparing liberalism with socialism, you're talking about individualism and freedom, versus statism.

Source:Libertarianism.Org

Economic Policy Journal: David Gordon- 'A Libertarian Argument for the Welfare State'

Source:The New Democrat- Pro -individual liberty. 

Source:The New Democrat

"The Niskanen Center in Washington, D.C, bills itself as a “libertarian think tank:” but its conception of libertarianism is one that many of us will find surprising. Jerry Taylor, the founder and president of the Center, in an article of March 10, “Do Libertarians Want Freedom or Not?” argues that libertarians ought to be sympathetic to welfare measures and legislation that restricts freedom of association to promote civil rights.

Why should libertarians support these policies? Taylor’s argument is a simple one: libertarians want to promote liberty and these policies will do so.  “If libertarianism is about advancing individual liberty, however, these aren’t acts of surrender. They are necessary prerequisites for a free society.”

How can Taylor say this? The welfare state seizes people’s property in order to “help” those whom the state wishes to subsidize, and laws that forbid racial discrimination in housing and employment likewise in obvious ways restrict liberty. No doubt there are arguments for these measures, but how can these arguments belibertarian ones? Surely these arguments would have to take the form that it is justifiable to restrict libertarian rights in order to help the poor or racial minorities."

From the Economic Policy Journal

Left-Libertarian, would be a solid way to describe my own politics I believe. I prefer Liberal or even Classical Liberal, Social Liberal even, but I'm someone whose all about individual freedom. But that it should be for everyone. That everyone should have the opportunity to achieve that and not have to live off any welfare state or private charity if just given the opportunity to live freely. 

Where government has a role is not as the director of society, but as a supporter and even referee. Not to call the plays and coach the teams, but to step in when predators break the rules that hurt the innocent. So that is where I guess Left-Libertarians, or Social-Liberals and Liberals, disagree with the Ron Paul Classical Libertarians lets say. Who just want government to stay home and perhaps arrest people when take from someone else's freedom. Or stop invaders when they invade the country.

The Left-Libertarian argument for the welfare state or what I prefer is the safety net, is that poverty is a real threat against freedom. And it keeps people down trapped away from freedom. So what you can do with a social insurance system is to help those people in the short-term and prevent them from having to deal with the worst forms of poverty like homelessness. As well as help them get on their feet and live in freedom and not off of taxpayers. 

A real safety net promotes freedom for everyone else, because you're creating new taxpayers and real consumers with real resources to consume the products that are made by the private market. Which creates good jobs for everyone involved. 

This is not an argument for a big centralized superstate where states and localities become almost non-relevant, or high taxes across the board. That discourages individual freedom and individualism. Just an insurance system for people who truly need it to help them achieve freedom as well. 

Thoughts On Liberty: Aunt Merryweather: What is Left Libertarianism?

Source:Thoughts On Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

The way Aunt Merryweather describes left-libertarianism, is how social liberalism is described and what social liberalism is. I use to see myself as a Classical Liberal, or even Liberal, which is what this blog is about for the most part. And then I read up on so-called Social Liberals and social liberalism. And the way that is put is people who believe in both individual freedom, both personal economic. But they also believe in using government to expand freedom for people who are struggling. You can call that the safety net, or social justice.

So after reading up on Social Liberals and social liberalism, I thought to myself, you know what I’m a Social Liberal. I didn’t like that term before, because when that term is used today that is the way you would describe a Social Democrat, or Democratic Socialist, or even Progressives of today. People who believe in not only a supersize welfare state, even if that means less income for people individually with higher taxes, but a nanny state. To make sure people are living healthy and not making bad decisions with their own personal lives.

If more Americans would just read up on social democracy and democratic socialism and then looked at their own politics and realized they believe in both personal and economic freedom. And don’t want a big government to try to manage their own lives for them economically, or personally, they would realize that they’re Social Liberals as well. Because they believe in a safety net and social insurance, but that those things should be for people who truly need them. Not big enough to try to run people’s lives for them. And only be left with mindless decisions over their own affairs. Without being able to take any risks with their lives.

I’ve never thought of myself as a Libertarian, even though I tend to be with Libertarians on 99% of the social issues generally. And even a lot of the economic issues. Because again it gets to role of government. I don’t want a big government, but I want a government effective enough to protect the innocent from predators who would harm them intentionally, or otherwise. Which includes, law enforcement and national security, but also a regulatory state not to run business’s for the people, but again to protect the innocent from predators. So products are being made safely and for the consumers as well. And today’s so-called Libertarians, don’t seem to have much if any role for government at any level.

The Baseline Scenario: James Kwak- 'Friedrich Hayek Supported a Guaranteed Minimum Income'

Source:Fabius Maximus- Economist Friedrich Hayek.

Source:The New Democrat

“We shall again take for granted the availability of a system of public relief which provides a uniform minimum for all instances of proved need, so that no member of the community need be in want of food or shelter.”

That’s from The Constitution of Liberty, “definitive edition,” p. 424. Yes, it comes as part of Hayek’s argument against mandatory state unemployment insurance. But it reflects a fundamental understanding that no one should go without food or shelter, and that it is the duty of the government to ensure this minimum level of existence. “The necessity of some such arrangement in an industrial society is unquestioned,” he wrote (p. 405)."

From The Baseline Scenario

Source:Reason Magazine- Economist Friedrich Hayek.

"Would Friedrich Hayek - the Nobel-winning economist who inspired Margaret Thatcher's free-market reforms and is a hero to libertarians everywhere - have supported Obamacare?"

From Reason Magazine

Friedrich Hayek, supported the Guaranteed Minimum Income and Milton Friedman supported the Negative Income Tax. Good for them and the libertarian movement, because it shows that perhaps the least politically diverse political movement in America even has some diversity with some competing ideas in it. The Negative Income Tax by the way, would replace all public assistance programs for the poor and give people in poverty one check every month that would have all of their public assistance benefits every month in one check. Bill Buckley, a Conservative Libertarian was against that.

Now here are my issues with what is called the Guaranteed Minimum Income, or the Guaranteed Basic Income, however you want to put it. As a Liberal, I want everyone to be incentivized to do as well as they can in America so they don’t have to live in poverty. The best way to move people out of poverty is to supply quality education, job training and infrastructure in communities that come up short in these areas. So kids from these communities can get themselves a good education and so their parents can finish and further their education and get themselves a good job and get out of poverty all together. That is how you beat poverty. Education, job training, infrastructure and good jobs.

Once you take away the incentive like with a Guaranteed Basic Income for Americans to do well in life and do as well as they can so they and their kids don’t have to live in poverty, because whatever job they have, or if they choose not work, because their income is now guaranteed no matter how productive they are, you’ll see a major drop in productivity in America. And as a result a major drop in economic growth. Because companies are no longer producing the quality of products their customers are accustomed to. And as a result people aren’t spending the money they normally do. Which is a big part of our economic growth, consumer spending. Why? Because no matter what we are all guaranteed a minimum income that keeps us out of poverty.

Democracy Journal: Jim Sleeper: Our Puritan Heritage

Source:Democracy Journal-

Source:The New Democrat

I’m a Liberal Democrat and proud of that, because I believe in liberal democracy and individual rights and the freedom that comes with those things. I believe American liberal democracy and American liberalism, is the best form of government in the world and has been very good to us for almost two-hundred and forty years now, since the founding of the American Federal Republic. I love our private enterprise capitalist system and all the economic freedom that has come with it. Including infrastructure and public education. And I’m sure Europe loves their social democratic big centralized governmental systems, that by in large has worked very well for them.

But just because one system works so well for one country, or several other countries, doesn’t mean that system will work in other countries. The uprisings in the Middle East, including what ISIS is doing in Iraq and Syria, is not a cry out for liberal democracy and individual freedom. But a rebellion against the current central state and central government. And in the case of ISIS, if they were to come to power in Syria and rule that country, they would rule it literally and ruin it. And make Bashar Al-Assad and his regime in Syria look like Moderates. Actually, they’re already done that.

I’m all for assisting countries that want freedom and to build their own liberal society. Whether they are already a democracy, but still developing their economy and state so democracy can thrive there and they don’t go back to authoritarianism. And I’m even for helping rebels who are truly fighting for freedom and are real freedom fighters. Who are taking on the authoritarian state in their country and wanting to bring freedom to their country. But one thing that the Iraq War has taught us, is that you can’t force freedom on another country and expect them to take it. They have to want freedom first and be willing to fight for it and keep it once they have it.

Democracy Journal: Robin Marie Averbeck: 'The History of American Liberalism'

Source:LuAnne Yri- President John F. Kennedy, talking about our individual rights.

Source:The New Democrat

"Rich Yeselson’s essay “What New Left History Gave Us” [Issue #35] is not merely about what New Left historiography did, but what contemporary historians of the liberalism birthed by the New Deal—historians like myself—are currently doing. According to Yeselson, we are less likely to judge “the hegemonic liberalism of the post-New Deal order” as harshly as the generation of New Left historians, who viewed that liberalism as complicit in building and maintaining racial and economic inequality. Recent generations, on the other hand, have seen the havoc that the ideological right can wreak, and accordingly have developed a more sympathetic take on liberalism, while focusing most of their attention on accounting for the rise of conservatism."

From Democracy Journal

"John F. Kennedy speaks on his income tax cut that he wants to present to Congress in January next year (partial newsreel)."

Source:Universal Newsreels- President John F. Kennedy, speaking in favor of tax cuts, in 1962.

From Universal Newsreels

The history of American liberalism really goes back to the founding of the Federal Republic and even before that to the American Revolution. Where we broke away from a dictatorial British Monarchy in the United Kingdom to build the first ever liberal democratic federal republic. You want to know about and understand American liberalism, read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution at least being something that today’s so-called Modern Liberals ( Socialists, really ) would throw out and replace. And perhaps not just replace at all so they can build their socialist collectivist centralized state. With a big centralized government big enough to take care of everyone.

American liberalism is about basic fundamental American liberal values of freedom, individual rights, opportunity, liberation, empowerment, education and responsibility. Liberalism is not libertarian or socialist or even social democratic, but it's liberal. Built around again common American liberal values of opportunity and freedom. That everyone should have the opportunity to obtain freedom in life. And not have to be dependent on government or others to take care of them. And this starts with things like infrastructure and education, which leads to the opportunity that everyone needs to live in freedom in life.

The old American political stereotypes use to be that the Liberal believes in personal freedom. And the Conservative believes in economic freedom. And they would compromise to see that the state especially the federal state doesn’t become so big that it threatens either personal or economic freedom. But in the last fifteen years or so at least when it comes to Liberals, we are stereotyped as people who not only don’t believe in economic freedom and perhaps not even private enterprise, if you read a lot of the so-called liberal publications today, but that we aren’t fans of personal freedom either. And that we need a government big enough to manage our economic and personal affairs. A welfare state plus a nanny state.

The facts are that if you’re truly a Liberal, you believe in both economic and personal freedom. The ability for the individual to manage their own economic and personal affairs. With the education and knowledge to have the freedom to make those decisions for themselves. We don’t want big government interference in our economic and personal lives. We want government to come in to see that everyone can get themselves the tools that they need to live in freedom. Again infrastructure and education, plus good parenting is where freedom comes from. And then after that it is up to the individual to make the most out of the good opportunities that they get in life.

Liberals wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and we created the American safety net. A public social insurance system for people in need to help them get by in the short-term while they are getting themselves on their feet and able to take care of themselves. We didn’t create superstate, a welfare state big enough to take care of everyone. Which is something that the so-called New-Left, ( Far-Left, really ) at least by American political standards wanted to create in America in the late 1960s. That Democratic Socialist presidential candidates Henry Wallace and Norman Thomas wanted to create in the 1940s and 50s.

The Liberal believes in opportunity and freedom. That the job of government is to protect everyone’s freedom until they give that up by taking an innocent person’s freedom. Protect freedom for those who already have it and deserve it. Expand freedom for those who don’t have it yet and need it. The so-called Modern Liberal, whose really a Socialist or Social Democrat at least everywhere else in the developed world, believes in equality. That everyone should be equal and not have so much or so little compared with everyone else. And that it’s the job of government especially the central government through wealth redistribution to see that everyone is equal. But that is not liberalism, but a form of democratic socialism that is much further left than American liberalism.

Jason Kuznicki: Modern Liberalism & The Paternalism of Things

Source:The New Democrat

Modern Liberalism and the Paternalism of Things is the perfect way to describe what is called modern liberalism. Which is a bogus term because there’s only one liberalism and you are either a Liberal or not. Or perhaps have some liberal positions but not a full-time Liberal. But there really isn’t classical liberalism or modern liberalism. I use the term classical liberalism as a way to compare liberalism with a more state form of liberalism. That really isn’t liberalism, but a state form of leftist collectivism or socialism. That tends to get labeled as liberalism. But what is called modern liberalism is a state form of paternalism.

What is called Modern liberalism that I call collectivism is a state form of paternalism. That puts its faith in the state through the voting process to decide what is best for everyone, the society. Instead of letting people decide these things for themselves and being able to manage and govern their own lives. Collectivists tend to see freedom as a dangerous because they tend to see it as the freedom to make mistakes. Instead of good decisions and that it needs to be regulated to the point that people can be protected from making too many bad decisions with their lives that the society has to pay for.

Liberalism in its classic and modern form is not about the state and that society needs to decide for everyone what is best for each individual in how they should live their own lives. But about the individual and that an educated public is much more qualified to make their own decisions. Because they have the knowledge to do so and when you also have an educated public you have the best and most productive society as possible. Allowing for an encouraging everyone to be as successful as possible.

Leonard P. Liggio: 'Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Conservatism'

Source:Libertarianism.Org- with a look at Leonard P. Liggio.

Source:The New Democrat

"Leonard Liggio is currently the Executive Vice President of Academics at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Research Professor at George Mason University’s School of Law. 

In this 1985 lecture given at the second world conference of the Libertarian International, Liggio outlines the history of the classical liberal movement in the Western world, starting in the Middle Ages and progressing through to the modern era. He contrasts this with the rise of statism, socialism, and later, conservatism." 

From Libertarianism.Org 

"Leonard Liggio is currently the Executive Vice President of Academics at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Research Professor at George Mason University's School of Law." 

In this 1985 lecture given at the second world conference of the Libertarian International, Liggio outlines the history of the classical liberal movement in the Western world, starting in the Middle Ages and progressing through to the modern era. He contrasts this with the rise of statism, socialism, and later, conservatism." 

Source:Libertarianism.Org

From Libertarianism.Org

Anthony Gregory: Liberals vs Libertarians

Source:Independent Institute- Anthony Gregory.

"Anthony Gregory, Research Editor at the Independent Institute, speaks to Judge Napolitano about the cost of war spending and how President Obama’s foreign policy is similar and different to former President George W. Bush’s." 

From the Independent Institute 

"Anthony Gregory speaks with Judge Napolitano of Fox Business Networks Freedom Watch about liberals attacking libertarians." 

Source:Independent Institute- Anthony Gregory

From the Independent Institute 

As I've blogged before, for political labels to mean anything, they have to be used correctly. Just because the so-called mainstream media or Hollywood, has definitions of what it means to be a Liberal or Libertarian, or so-called Liberals and Libertarians, call themselves Liberals or Libertarians, doesn't automatically mean that they're Liberals or Libertarians. We have sexual, as well as other cultural closets in America and we have political closets as well. 

When I think of Liberal, I think of someone who believes: 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. However, they generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[11] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history." 

From Wikipedia 

When I think of Libertarian, I think of someone who believes: "Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value.[1][2][3][4] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, freedom of association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism, and voluntary association.[3][4][5] Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of Libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of Libertarianism.[4][6][7] Scholars distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.[8] Libertarians of various schools were influenced by liberal ideas." 

From Wikipedia

There's nothing liberal about: 

the so-called War On Drugs 

indefinite detention 

debt and deficits 

being anti-corporate 

anti-private business 

anti-wealth, anti-for profit 

anti-liberal democracy 

anti-straight, anti-man 

anti-Caucasian 

anti-Christian, 

anti anything else that so-called Libertarians like the Andrew Napolitano's of the world like to throw at Liberals and say this is what Liberals believe. Those are all far-left values, that if anything are illiberal values, not liberal values.

Peter Landy: 'A Blueprint For a Just Society'

Source:Slide Player- I guess you can call this an endorsement of feminism.

“A just society that allows their government to pass unjust laws plants the seeds of tyranny. When that same government is enforces its unju… 

From OGS-Silent Crimes 

A true just society is where everyone has the opportunity to be successful in life and what they make of that opportunity themselves is up to them. And that we are all held accountable of the decisions that we make, our success’s and failures.

Liberals believe in equality of opportunity where everyone has a good shoot at being successful in life and again what we do with those opportunities to be successful if up to us. And that we are held accountable for what we do with the opportunities that are presented for us in life.

Socialists or SocialDemocrats believe in equality of results, that everyone should have the same things and wealth in life regardless of what they bring to the table professionally and economically. Which is equality of result, that we are all entitled to the same benefits that come with life. Where we would all have the same income and so-forth, where there wouldn’t be any rich people or middle people or poor people.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Professor Friedrich Hayek: 'Private Property Made Wealth Creation Possible'

Source:Christian Patriarchy- Economics Professor Friedrich Hayek. No idea when this photo was taken.

"PRIVATE PROPERTY ASURES MAN OF A PRIVATE LIFE" 

From Christian Patriarchy

A short video to this, but what I believe Professor Friedrich Hayek was arguing here is that there is no other economic system in the world that has produced more wealth, for more people, than the system based around property rights and the freedom of individuals to move around freely and to earn a good living for themselves and then to live off the wealth of their labor and production. Not his words, exactly, but he's making the case for private enterprise and capitalism.

Los Angeles Times: Charlotte Allen- Liberals vs. Conservatives'

Source:DC Ist- Los Angeles Times columnist Charlotte Allen. I wish I could find a better picture of her.

"A few years ago Ann Coulter published a book titled “How to Talk to Liberal (If You Must).” With all due respect, Coulter, one of my favorite conservative eye-pokers, was wrong. There is no “how” in talking to a liberal. You can’t talk to a liberal, period.

Believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve got a liberal mother, four liberal siblings and their assorted liberal offspring, and a horde of liberal friends (I went to college and grad school). Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I’m greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.

The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we’re evil. Tell a liberal that you hope President Obama will be defeated in the upcoming election, and you’ll be branded a racist. Voice your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you’re a homophobe. Express outrage at the idea of building a mosque on the spot where one of the planes’ fuselages fell in the 9/11massacre, and you’re an Islamophobe. If you support the tea party, or Rick Santorum for president, or defunding Planned Parenthood, or setting up credible border enforcement, you could be all of the above plus more: anti-woman, anti-poor-people, anti-tolerance and a “fascist” to boot... 

You can read the rest of Charlotte Allen's piece at the Los Angeles Times  

“A Republican wants a chunk of Southern California to secede and become the 51st state. Ana Kasparian and comedian Jimmy Dore discuss if we should split the United States into a red country and a blue country.” 

Source:The Young Turks- NBC News's Tim Russert's prediction coming true?

From The Young Turks

I think the main problem with the Left in America (or at least the Far-Left) is that they divide everything into Right versus Left or their version of Right versus Left.

So according to the Left (at least according to Ana Kasparian and Jimmy Dore) California is divided between 1960s left-wing hippies and today’s hipsters, who was just want to give piece a chance and want government to be generous with other people’s money and have government provide everyone with all sorts of what they call free services.

And on the Right (at least according to Ana Kasparian and Jimmy Dore) they are just a bunch of 19th century, backwards looking and thinking country bumpkins, who think Italians and Jews (let alone Latinos and Middler Easterners) and everyone else with dark hair and olive complexion are foreigners and invaders to their Confederate States of America (what they call the United States) who want to nationalize religion and require all of their citizens to carry guns and prey to Jesus everyday. If only life, especially American life were that simple.

I don’t even live in California, but I know from what I’ve read and seen about it, as well as having family there, that California is not divided between some Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, confederate theocracy, and some hippie, socialist state, where the rest of California lives. But if you watch Ana Kasparian and Jimmy Dore here and you’ve never even heard of California, let alone have lived there, you might believe that’s exactly how California is divided today. And then of course you probably also believe in UFO’s and flying marshmallows as well.

Center For Independent Studies: Jacob T. Levy- 'Rationalism, Pluralism, and Hayek's History of Liberal Thought'

Source:Center For Independent Studies- Jacob T. Levy.

"The classical liberal economist F.A. Hayek frequently wrote on the history of liberal ideas, trying both to recover half-forgotten truths and to find the sources of what he viewed as pernicious intellectual errors. He believed that understanding past ideas was important for the correct diagnosis of contemporary ills, since those had so often come from theoretical and philosophical mistakes. He went so far as to propose naming what became the Mont Pelerin Society, the preeminent postwar grouping of free-market economists, the 'Acton-Tocqueville Society,' after two nineteenth century liberal political theorists whose writings on economics were cursory at best.

In this talk, Jacob T. Levy describes and assesses Hayek's history of liberal thought, suggesting that he correctly identified key issues in liberal constitutionalism but was too quick to jump from constitutional to economic questions. He wrote histories of rationalism and pluralism in liberal thought, but mistook them for histories of economic planning and free markets. Clarifying this can help us see the often-uneasy relationship between pluralism and markets, and to recognise trade-offs that classical liberal political economy sometimes has to make." 

From the Center For Independent Studies

If you are Liberal such as myself (not a Libertarian or Socialist) you are a believer in individual liberty and liberal democracy, which means people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit, again as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. 

Liberals aren't anti-government, we are anti-big government and pro-limited government and these things are different. Lay out what government should be doing based on what it's good at, does better than the private sector or something only government is capable of doing like national security, law enforcement, foreign affairs, and a few other things. And don't create a new government agency or raise new taxes just because you have a new idea for the public good, but weigh it to whether government should be doing that or not. Thats what limited government is about, its not about being anti-government, but pro-limited government. 

Liberals and Libertarians as well as Classical Conservatives all believe in individual liberty and maximize freedom. And we are anti-collectivism, but one difference being, that Liberals and Classical Conservatives believe that government should step in when individuals abuse innocent people with their liberty. To stop those actions and punish them. There are so-called Libertarians that don't even want government to do that. 

I have a lot of respect for libertarianism in the sense that they are anti-big government, but I have more respect for Libertarians who are anti-big government, but not anti-government and there's a difference there. But I don't see libertarianism as classical liberalism, but as a separate political ideology thats farther to the left of liberalism, not right because of how anti-government Libertarians tend to be.