Almost Classical

Watching a clip of Chris Matthews and two guests lump the Tea Party, CPAC, and libertarians together was enough to make my skin crawl — and not as a great thrill up my leg, to paraphrase Matthews. No, it is utter disgust and contempt I feel for Matthews and company, people who see what they want to see. The core of classical liberalism, libertarianism with the small "L" independent of party nonsense, is that the ultimate "property right" is that of yourself over your mind and body. To quote John Stuart Mill, "The individual is sovereign." That is, in essence, classical liberalism. It is an ideal of negative rights, a terminology I have repeatedly criticized as unfortunate. It is the right to be protected against government abuses. When Matthews and company suggest states rights, a common "conservative" mantra, is in any way associated with libertarianism, they are mistake. The smaller state or county has no more right to my being than doe...

Following a post on Krugman, probably because that is what he was reading, Nathan posted the following comment: In your description of yourself, you are a classical liberal defined as: "Classical liberalism embodies the original concept of liberalism: a faith in freedom to, not freedom from as a guiding principle." Yet the concept of 'freedom to,' which is positive liberty, is contained nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers of our country were, as far as the definition of classical liberal that I know, mostly classical liberals - hence where we get the term. Yet, the U.S. Constitution is only written in terms of negative liberty, or 'freedom from.' How do you reconcile what appears to be a modern interpretation of classical liberalism from what is most assuredly a different actual and historical definition of the term classical liberal? Check the definition with references from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy before answering ...