Tuesday, June 16, 2020

"Classical liberalism"? Yuck!

For years, I've noticed the more refined "libertarian-leaning" elites out there have claimed to be, not libertarians, but "classical liberals". This may be to distinguish themselves from the unwashed masses like me.

Once upon a time, I felt a little guilty that I couldn't be part of that elite. I eventually came to accept that it simply isn't possible. I don't fit.

I can't be a "classical liberal" because I don't accept any justification for political governance. Ever. Politics makes people stupid.

Sure, maybe it's better to be a "classical liberal" than to be fully on board with whatever police state dystopia the pro-government extremists lust for. Still, it's a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. Once you accept just a little political governance, how will you stop it from growing out of your control? History has shown that you can't. Or won't.

How liberal-- in the antique sense of the word-- can you be when you still advocate stealing "just a little" to prop up your "minimal government"? "Just a little slavery" to empower the "night watchman" state? Even if this "minimum state" doesn't immediately do what political governments naturally do and metastasize out of control. Supporting such a state of affairs doesn't seem generous/liberal; it seems greedy and self-centered to me. They want "just a little" government so badly they'll sacrifice your liberty to have it.

No "classical liberalism" for me! It relies too heavily on politics.

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.