How do we deal with the ((((classical liberal)))) problem?

How do we deal with the ((((classical liberal)))) problem?

What exactly is the problem

>not being a classical liberal
you're doing it wrong

Former white guy and ex trump voter here, its funny to see him rush and turn. This guy is unfit to lead and i hope to God he doesnt get atomic passwords

Restore the monarchy, or some other means of centralized autocratic rule. Democracy 90% of the time will lead to (((liberalism))) because it is simple a means of choosing government through popular opinion, which is in turn controlled by the media. Furthermore, liberalism values "personal freedom" (i.e., do whatever you feel like at the moment) above all else, which makes it attractive to a democracy because people in general hate responsibility and have low time preference.

Classical liberal? Me? Don't be redicilous, I'm a social democrat, I'm above all of this bullshit.
And by the way, vote Schulz, we can't let these evil right wingers get into power.

Same thing we did with libertarians:
Wait until they join us.
The left is already attacking them as Nazis. They'll wake up on their own.

I never joined you.

t.libertarian

Libertarian here, I only joined because Ron Paul was the last voice of reason for libertarians in America

>2015+2
>American flag
>Not being brown

You're doing it right user

Hammering them with facts until they get rekt, the foundations of their positions are nothing but lies and MUH FEELS.

...

>He wants less freedoms
You idiot reactionaries deserve to be deported to North Korea

More accurate.

>tfw classical liberal

>Cherry-picking the worst possible example.
Look, I can do the same thing: "hurr, move to Somalia if you hate government."

Classical Liberalism is based on two principals: that more personal freedom is always good, and the equality of all people. Historically both have been blatantly false.

>Friedman
>Bastiat
>Jefferson
>Rand
>von Mises
>von Hayek
>Locke
>Madison
>"muh feels"

What in the literal fuck are you talking about?

K then go move to an authoritarian country. Name it, I bet it's still classically liberal and your spoiled brainletism just can't even recognize it

>comparing these great thinkers of old with moronic youtube faggots

Kys. All of these men would be "far-right extremists" by modern standards.

So progressive!

Kraut looks like an asshole desu

Kraut has nothing in common with these people

>implying America's had a classically liberal ruler in the last century.
It all started going downhill with Woodrow Wilson.

If classical liberalism is so good, why did it fail and get defeated so early then?

? What...the only libs I won't Nazi stomp are a problem?

>ohyespleasetreadonme.png

I just want to bash the brains out of this useless fag

>youtube avatar fags
fucking retarded

Individuals decided they want security more than freedom, and the tyranny of the majority took over.

I believe in many of th economic principals of classical liberalism. What I reject is the totally unfounded idea that the principals of economics can be automatically applied to broader society.
For example:
>Individual choice is generally a good thing.
This is probably accepted by most economists as correct. Letting the market guide choices to some extent helps the economy. The stupid part is when "classical liberals" say this:
>Personal choice is always good for the economy
>Therefore it is also always good for society as a whole.
There is no logical basis for this jump. In fact, the second statement is ultimatley false: if personal choice was generally good in all cases, then we should legalize all drugs, sexual aberrations (necrophilia, etc.), allow large-scale ecological destruction by landowners, etc.

Anyway to answer your question. One country which has been fantastically successful recently, with an authoritarian government, is China. Despite having only a fraction of Western income, it has less crime, no rioting and urban chaos, and better primary educational results. It's economic policies probably are "classically liberal" but its social policies certainty aren't, and the results are frankly better than the utter collapse we are seeing in the West.

All trash except for Jefferson and Madison, who would be far right white nationalists if they were alive today.

Locke is a pholosophical charlatan.

Christianity.

Be as liberal as you like so long as your liberal behaviour conforms to a standard.

did he really said it?

> It's economic policies probably are "classically liberal"
Jailing domestic traders during crashes isn't liberal
The state appointing the value to a currency isn't liberal

China is shit and a shit example
Low crime, no riots etc was also what the USSR had and it still failed

Its not the equality of all people , its giving them an equal playing field to prove their own superiority.

>Brazil
You subhuman baboon. You literal nigger.

How dare you speak, you swarthy jungle monkey. How dare you open your big lipped, rim encrusted, menthol cigarette smelling mouth?

You are human trash, Diego Tyrone LeShawn de Maradona. Universally despised, derided and mocked. Your nationality and skin tone offers no hope to the world that South America can ever prosper. Crawl back in to the Brazilian jungle you came out of, you literal orangutan.

I hope you decide to sail your grandfathers skip to the Falklands and rape some sheep, as is in the negroes nature. It would still be the whitest pussy you ever had. Give Nigel and Robert a chance for some target practice, your sole use to the world. Argentinians obsession with a few windswept islands in the Atlantic is hilarious but sad. Coincidentally its the only worthwhile contribution Argentina has made to the medical field. The MUH LAS MALVINAS sentiment in the average negro Argentinian is both an early warning sign of autism in children, and early on set Alzheimer's in adults.

Take your black hairy fingers off your keyboard, and never talk about the human species again, you mockery of our supposed shared ancestor.. No amount of olive oil and wheat flour slabbed on your face every morning will make you white. It's about as delusional of an idea as your daydreams of European heritage.

You nigger.

You make Bolivia look like a beacon of civilisation.

You are the Baltimore of South America.

Go fertilise the pampas with you and your families corpses, its the best you can hope for in life. For the first time in your life, nigger, you have a job making food for beings vastly superior to yourself. Uruguayan cattle. Coincidentally, it would be the first time an Argentinian "man" provided for a family.

Die, Diego. No one would miss you. Except for Australian Aboriginals, who now would have no one to make them look good.

He's literally an SPD voter. He's scum

Freidman and Bastiat are both pretty good, but their specialties were basically economic in nature. I agree Locke was an idiot, Rand was a self-centered idiot.

Genocide.

just wew, germany is doomed

Locke was great, barbaric mongoloids!

>Not economically liberal.
Well it certainly seems to be doing better than any Western country at the moment. Just proving my point further; maybe even the economic aspect isn't even necessary.

>China is shit and a shit example
>Low crime, no riots etc was also what the USSR had and it still failed.
Again it's a much more stable country than most European nations. (Not just bullshitting here either; I have several friends from China.) The USSR collapsed due to economic stagnation from Marxism; China is no longer Marxist and its economy is doing extremely well. They were disappointed they got "only" 6.5% growth this quarter.

And defining and preventing crime is literally the primary purpose of government, so if you don't do that well, you are a failure.

He claimed that people have no inherent traits at birth. Now, with genetics, we know this is scientifically bullshit. But even in his time anyone with a shred of sense could have told you it was bullshit. Yet people still believe its implications (equality at birth; see US dec. of independence.)

How is it doing better? All their best and the brightest including children of rich castes are mass leaving the country.
Stability is a delusive concept. China relies on demand for slave labor to stay afloat. It will be hit hard by automation and its own population's demand for Western standards. It's also pure poison in terms of air, water and environment quality. It's not a good place to live in, not even as a richfag

Tell them to fuck off and die on reddit where they belong

So that means that libertarianism actually doesn't work where people can decide.

>tyranny of the majority
kek looks like someone has an issue with free choices.

>Freidman and Bastiat
Ok fine Bastiat is decent from what little of his I've read, but Friedman? He was wrong about literally everything economicswise. Traditional Keynesianism, not the neo-version that uses only half of Keynes' model, trounces Monetarism in every way. His arguments for free trade are totally braindead too.

>tabula rasa
Into the trash it goes.

The monarchy still exists. What do you think celebrities and politicians are?

China has cancer villages, air pollution that makes healthy people asmatic, water pollution turns entire rivers blood red. Don't give me this "China is stable bullshit."

>>Personal choice is always good for the economy
>>Therefore it is also always good for society as a whole.
This is a strawman. From what I know about classical liberalism, the basis for personal freedoms is not due to economic reasons. It's for moral and pretty self-evident reasons. No one wants to be oppressed, it's that simple.
>The china is authoritarian meme
I've seen this refuted many times, but all I can say is that China is absolutely economically liberal. Especially internationally. I don't know much about the actual laws there or the level of personal freedom

Tyranny of the majority is when the majority impedes on the rights of the few. When the ignorant over power the intelligent with the help of government. Classical liberalism is about protecting the individuals freedom , not the majorities freedom , the only problem with a fee society is when it turns against individual freedom.

China is like 40% state controlled enterprises. It has a joke of a financial sector, no IP protections, and shitty state-monitored web companies like Baidu that will never compete in the global market and only succeeded because the government locked out all competitors.

Once we have robots running factories China's cheap labor will no longer be a benefit. A robot-run widget factory in the United States is just as cost effective as a robot-run widget factory in China. In the near future only knowledge work honed on the whestone of free enterprise, property rights and competition will prove important. China must either seriously open their economy like South Korea and Japan or fall into the middle income trap as their manufacturing-based economy stagnates. I wonder which it will be.

>All their best and the brightest including children of rich castes are mass leaving the country.
That's what tends to happen when people get rich in a poor country: they move somewhere where they can better spend their money. But give it a few more years and China will start to recover from its Maoist era and catch the West economically. It's already in the process of doing so.

>It's also pure poison in terms of air, water and environment quality.
I agree. But they're doing a far better job of managing it than (liberal) Western countries did during their own industrial revolutions.

Like I said before, the ability to control criminal behavior is the ultimate point of government. China does this far better than most countries.

Ex Trump Voter? You can take back your vote?

Ex Trump supporter, you mean.

*fixes glasses*
*snickers*
*farts*

I'm going to go grab some pussy.

Being a a classical liberal aka a libertine is a rejection of morality.

Looks like someone needs the government to protect the rights of the "chosen elite of freedom" who don't need no man and are above security and all!

Classical Liberals are called libertarians in the US.
What the US calls liberals is left wing party politics with a fuzzy agenda.

The people choose their politicians and celebrities; they do not choose their Kings. That is why the monarchy needs to be restored; people cannot be trusted to make good decisions. See Plato.

This is just about the dumbest argument I've heard. Who decides what's moral? Even babbies know that morality is subjective.

No, I just need to move to Montana and get my funs amped up, free societies only work with like minded people.

Is classic liberal the same as libertarian?

Rejection of the government enforcement of morality, which I do

Reading through this thread (1 post by OP), it seems that most of the posters in it don't know what classical liberalism is. You just heard liberal and saw that OP put it in jew marks and sperged out.

>proving my point

Relativism is the antithesis of truth.

Didn't he force that girl to stay with him in Germany or something?
Äcklig djävel favä...

> classical liberal = libertine

You can be a classical liberal and reject hedonism, you mong.

Not necessarily. Hoppe e.g. is much less of a faggot than Kraut and Tea.

>Therefore I need a daddy to tell me how to live my life

> free societies only work with like minded people
As I said: another failed ideology that ignores human nature. You literally sound like a grassroots communist.

Hi

>From what I know about classical liberalism, the basis for personal freedoms is not due to economic reasons. It's for moral and pretty self-evident reasons. No one wants to be oppressed, it's that simple.
No one WANTS to be "oppressed;" but it doesn't follow that oppression still isn't what's best for them in the long run. People have low time preference and hate responsibility; therefore they will make poor choices for themselves. That is why we need a state to coerce them in some matters.

>China is absolutely economically liberal.
I agree; that's why the economy is doing pretty well there. They aren't socially liberal though, which shows the two do not need to go hand-in-hand.

Hahaha friends PEPE amirite, KEKISTAN
oh and also I post pictures of black dudes fucking because those alt-right guys think race actually matters unlike me mr. meme machine mixed race faggot who raises my wife's son
his fake laugh is atrocious as well
I used to respect him because he brought me out of leftism but he's just way too JUST

I was thinking about this earlier

America will always operate on bicameral levels. In our elections, there will always be a two-party system.

We all know about the 4-sector Political Compass Graph. The x axis represents the Economic Scale and the y axis represents the Size of Government.

The problem in our system now is that our country was founded on the basis of rotating between quadrants 2 and 4 aka the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party. That is America's true Left and Right parties. THAT is what America is founded on. To put our country into any of the left quadrants of 1 and 3 is to change the fabric of our country and make irreparable changes to our first 2 Amendments.

Our Democratic Party currently wants to pull us into the Left Zone on the basis that the Left quadrants are more progressive (this is a lie) When Dems are in power, they constantly chip away at the people's power to influence their fates by chipping at the First and Second Amendments.

What's happened recently is that instead of the natural rotation of government, from upper quadrant to lower quadrant, we have been moving between quadrant 1 and 2 in a sort of death spiral of Big Government.

Our republicans have run on an authoritarian platform and our Dems have run on an authoritarian platform. This is not economically feasible for very long and so you start having Ron Pauls and Alex Jones' coming out of the woodwork to warn us about our doom.

The truth is that the entire Left side of the Political Compass is obsolete with the American Constitution, and for good reason. The entire Left side represents absolute government or no government at all. It consists of governments that work well in theory and in theory alone.

It is only in quadrants 2 and 4, in perpetual cycle, that America can move forward and still be AMERICA.

Donald Trump represents a leader who understands this, and he straddles the line between authority and liberty aka pragmatism.

No, but definition you can't, liberalism is hedonism, that's it's foundation It's a degenerate ideology that claims freedom is slavery to desire.

>Rejection of the government enforcement of morality, which I do
The government has to enforce morality because people often are incapable of doing so themselves.

Hoppe is anarcho-capitalist. Not even remotely the same... I'm just wondering what the precise difference is between "classical" liberal and a libertarian.

It seems like most people on Sup Forums have very libertarian leanings but with nationalist/ethnic leanings that prefer a ethnically homogeneous all white nation-state but with libertarian within that state.

I only thought about this today, so it's something I might refine and give more critical thought to. Also forgot to add visual aid.

>FUCK YOU MOM AND DAD I'LL DO WHAT I WANT

Ah the classical liberal.

>but it doesn't follow that oppression still isn't what's best for them in the long run. People have low time preference and hate responsibilit
And who does it benefit to have an authoritarian government? Surely not people like us, but only the ones in power. To say that it's "best in the long run" is a manipulation tactic to have you give up your freedoms. I ask again, why would you personally want less freedom?

...

>1 post by this id
>no context

This thread fucking sucks

>mfw I start to unironically like Sargoy
>mfw he says that campaigns should be funded with tax money

It's a trojan horse.

Kraut is always angry at the muzzies.
Must be tough living in Germanistan.

He is still a leftist faggot and an enemy of the right, so fuck him.

>It seems like most people on Sup Forums have very libertarian leanings

Most people on Nu-Sup Forums are from reddit or /lgbt/ yes.

Classical liberal was the original philosophy , its a little more patriotic and nationalist than libertarians, and has more respect for borders , libertarian are pretty much neoliberals

Where does it claim freedom is slavery to desire?

Considering every well functioning society is built of like minded people who are together because of various forms of cults I think it stands, all if the cults , religion , nationalism, political parties and philosophies, and ethnic groups. Its just I chose a different cult. The come that'd give me and any member the most choice.

Thank you based Milton Friedman.

>why would you personally want less freedom?
Simple: I accept less freedom as a (rather minimal) price to pay for physical and cultural security. To give an extreme example: I cede the right to kill people to the state, and in exchange I receive the right not to be killed.

Obviously classical liberals accept this particular example. But it can also be applied, in the same way, to less clear cut things; say, I cede the right to build a factory wherever I want, in exchange for a social promise that other's will not, say, drive a species extinct by doing so themselves.

>And who does it benefit to have an authoritarian government? Surely not people like us, but only the ones in power.
To be fair, this is how Democratic Classical Liberalism works as well.

>Classical liberal was the original philosophy , its a little more patriotic and nationalist than libertarians, and has more respect for borders , libertarian are pretty much neoliberals

So it's a little bit what they call "paleo-libertarianism" in America, where they put a lot of emphasis on Western civilization, social conservatism, marriage, borders, patriotism etc? Pat Buchanan sort of?

The current form of government managed to unite all kinds of different races, religions and cultures in the pursuit of happiness.

Looks like the majority just desired differently. By the power of their free will.

They don't name the jew and promote degeneracy.

no
they don't talk about low white birth rates and that there is a clear agenda against whites and specifically whites, Kraut and Tea at least doesn't
he doesn't admit the differences in intelligence between the races

Nah. Legislation of morals is a conservative trap, much like democrats legislating compassion.

Some people are amoral or immoral - don't associate with them. Simple as that.

>free trade
>free markets
>free speech
>property rights
very progressive indeed

there's a snek for that

He might be afraid of getting reeducated.

No. He is a leftist reading Der Spiegel. Has nothing to do with hate speach laws. You obviously haven't watched his videos.

Classical liberalism is more traditional because it was happening in the time period we consider to be traditional, and it worked fairly well until social stigma against degeneracy fell away. I consider myself classical liberal but I have very traditional opinions , I just dont think they should be enforced.


You're not wrong that the majority desired differently by using their free will, my biggest critique of classical liberalism.is that governments job was supposed to ensure individual freedoms again the majority, however that didn't work out too well, and thinly races that ardently united in America are similar races.

>Some people are amoral or immoral - don't associate with them. Simple as that.
That's a good attitude to have, but it doesn't always work out. You may not have an interest in immoral people, but immoral people might have an interest in you.

The idea is to prevent actions which don't "directly harm" me, but can still have clear negative externalities. For example, the stopping the factory making some rare rodent go extinct again. Or requiring everyone to get vaccinations to enforce "herd immunity."

Fuck I messed up with typos in the second half Germanon, I apologise for phone posting.