Classical Liberal

>be me
>Classical Liberal
>people hear the word liberal
>They shit on me for it
>mfw pic related

Modern Liberalism literally ruined my reputation.

Other urls found in this thread:

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Implying Liberalism ever had a good reputation.

I just tell people that I believe what the founding father believed but with all the modern moral sensibilities like "slavery is bad" and "people can do what they want in private". Gets the point across.

Classical Liberalism leads to Progressivism, which leads to the colloquial "liberal" of today. Your ideology just leads to the other, all it takes is time. Because it's all underpinned by the concept of "equality".

It is good....that is if you stick to basic human rights and a small government. If anyone goes more radical with it, it would literally be pic related. It'll backfire.

ur the reason this shit is happening in the first place. bc u didn't listen to the slippery slope argument

Modern Liberalism is the logical conclusion of Classical Liberalism. The America we live in today is a direct result of the founding fathers.

But how does wanting basic human rights and small government lead to almost the exact opposite? Like huwhite people are being ostracized and wanting socialism?

This user fucking gets it, "oh that will never happen", "it's never been tried before", slippery slope is just a (((fallacy))) goy.

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
>Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.

This. Also all of modern liberalism ("socialism," Marxism, etc.) is a slippery slope leading to a unified global welfare state.

Give me a quick rundown of what you want us to understand what you mean by classic liberal. Just to be safe here.

Basic human rights and small goverment. Period.

I mean, we should probably have seen it coming, they did literally put it in the fucking name "progressive"
change along a tangent isn't just an incident, it's a playbook

"Human rights" is a meaningless phrase outside the context of global government. Any "right" that implies state intervention is antithetical to small government. The state and the individual are not fundamentally opposed. Society is composed of families, guilds, communities, etc.; individuals do not exist. Liberalism is simply wrong.

>Basic human rights
What are those and who guarantees them to whom?

You enabled it

Thank you guys for helping change my views.

Get with the times, lad. I used to have a friend like you. He identified himself politically the same way. He refused to call out modern liberals on their bullshit and now, he is a modern liberal. Don't fall down the same path.

Because humans are social creatures and the vast majority of us are reliant on one another and do our best work when we're doing it for people we love. This is highly affirmed and rewarded by duty-based, authoritarian societies such as monarchies and religious foundations for morality. Under such a society discipline is both demanded and rewarded, and those who aren't prone to discipline are placed under the authority of those who are, ie
children under parents
wife under husband
the common man under church/state advised by philosophical leadership
This ensures basic social cohesion. The average man works his ass off because he has a duty to do so that is reinforced by his love for them, his wife is provided for and in return has her duties and responsibilities which make it worth her providers' while. The family works for the community, the community for the nation.

But under the principle of "freedom" (ie, from being told what to do), these things fall apart, and the common man, especially women, no longer produce sufficient labour to keep themselves alive and comfortable. The replacement of duties with rights means that society becomes defined at its highest state not by what binds us together, but by what keeps us apart. Eventually these "free" peoples will realize they have nothing, having never had the community and regulations that both inspire and demand more of them. A few special individuals will have succeeded, and it is from them that the rabble will demand the things that keep them alive. The entire concept of freedom goes out the window once isolated, disenfranchised people start feeling hungry. But instead of "give to me and I'll give in return" like with trad families, communities and nations, it's parasitism and soulless insufficiency brought on by the panic of liberals realizing they now have to betray everything they once stood for because they were wrong.

I was once a classical liberal. The leftist stole classical liberal identity to push their degeneracy. Let the death of classical liberal movements be a warning for the future.

You are a rare leaf, and I'll stay my hand from thee on the day of the rake. Liberalism blurs the defining attributes between freedom and license. Freedom without morality and principle is license. Liberalism wants license, but claims it wants freedom. Ergo, liberalism is a lie, a half-truth with sugar sprinkled over the unsavory half.