Many Leftists Don't Understand 'Classical Liberalism' | Moral Libertarian Talk

Welcome to the first episode of Moral Libertarian Talk, where we explore political ideas, issues and misunderstandings in depth, from the Moral Libertarian viewpoint. Subscribe if you are interested. This show is brought to you by my new book, The Moral Libertarian Idea, which is all about reimagining a positive and pro-community, pro-humanity classical liberalism for the 21st century. Link is in the description.

Today, I want to talk about my understanding of the term 'classical liberalism', its relationship with the Moral Libertarian idea, and why I identify as a 'classical liberal'. Right now, in 2020, the word 'liberal' is pretty unpopular: both conservatives and leftists hate it. 'Liberal', without qualification, is associated with corporate power, elites trampling on everyday working people, neoliberal identity politics, and so on. The term 'classical liberal', increasingly popular in the past few years, is an attempt to reclaim the liberal heritage, the tradition of Locke, Smith, Mill and others, from these evils. In fact, 'classical liberalism' stands in stark contrast to the elitist, corporatist so-called 'liberalism' that the establishment embodies, and I believe we can expose and defeat that fake 'liberalism' by re-asserting the 'classical liberal' tradition.

For some reason, it appears that right-leaning people tend to get the meaning of 'classical liberalism' in this context, even if they don't fully embrace the actual ideals of classical liberalism. However, many leftists don't even seem to know that 'classical liberalism' is opposed to elitist establishment fake 'liberalism', and often bundle the two together. As a classical liberal, I oppose the market fundamentalism of establishment neo-liberals, because I strongly oppose the idea that humanity should be reduced to the logic of capitalist markets controlled by global elites. As a classical liberal, I also oppose the divisive identity politics and disrespect for free speech and rational discourse associated with those we increasingly call 'radlibs'. As a classical liberal, my vision is one of true individual liberty for all, and a communitarian spirit that I believe will thrive under conditions of true individual liberty. And it's not just me. Classical liberals throughout history have generally believed similarly.

Some leftists may be surprised that, wow, classical liberals share a lot of ideas with classical leftists. And that's true. I think the libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky once said that historical classical liberals shared a lot of his ideals, and I agree. In turn, I also admire leftist thinkers like Chomsky. In fact, all historical classical liberal thinkers were on the left of the political spectrum for their time. Furthermore, before the corruption of liberalism during the ultra-capitalist age starting in the 1980s, as well as the corrpution of academic leftism due to the influence of postmodernism and postmodernist-adjacent ideas starting in the late 1960s, old-school liberals and old-school lefists were often allies. It wasn't that long ago that libertarians were on the left of politics. In fact, as recently as my college days in the mid-2000s, about half of all Americans who identified as libertarians voted Democratic, this probably only changed when free speech became an issue starting from around 2013. And even today, I see the part of the left that is about liberty, workers' rights and so on, the part of the left that rejects postmodern philosophical nonsense, as allies.

As a classical liberal, I'm most interested in individual liberty, things like free speech, freedom of conscience, and so on. As a leftist, you may be more interested in the material wellbeing of workers, whether they have health care, whether they can enjoy a good standard of living even as we move into the fourth industrial revolution, and ultimately whether they have a fair and democratic say in the workplace. But then, one really cannot exist without the other. So where we're different is mostly a perspective thing. Surely, our political worldview could be quite different, with most leftists being materialists and classical liberals being idealists. But in the real world, this really doesn't matter, because our goals are really not in conflict as a result. The pursuit of health care coverage for all, a living wage for all, and increased workplace democracy doesn't care about if you are an idealist or a materialist.

In fact, I suspect why many lefists are skeptical towards idealist liberals, is because some self-identified liberals or libertarians have almost deliberately neglected the material conditions of everyday workers. Some so-called libertarians reduce everything down to smaller government, and the more extreme ones even say that they wouldn't have a problem with the whole world turning into private property, with all the anti-liberty consequences for those without property. From there, it's really just a small step into neoreactionarism. These people should really read some Adam Smith. Smith would be horrified by their idea of what counts as liberty! Indeed, The Wealth Of Nations is full of warnings against such a vision of theoretical liberty coupled with actual tyranny. Instead, all serious and sincere classical liberal thinkers focus on actual liberty for individuals, liberty of conscience, liberty of action, rather than liberty for the rich to accumulate as much private property as possible!

Which is why the Moral Libertarian idea is, I believe, the best embodiment of what classical liberals actually want. We want every individual to have equal and maximum moral agency. Sometimes this will require collective efforts to stop the whole world being turned into the private property of global elites, so that we can preserve freedom of movement and freedom of assembly. Sometimes this will require the provision of both Medicare For All and either a UBI or a job guarantee to individuals, so that their free speech isn't at the mercy of their employers. These decisions may in fact not produce the smallest government. Some conventional libertarians may even say they violate the NAP on the surface, but in my view, upholding the ideal of Equal Moral Agency for all is the best way to honor the NAP in its fullest spirit. Furthermore, these would be decisions that bring practical liberty, because they take into account everything that could affect liberty, including material factors. And this line of thinking, I believe, is the one most consistent with historical classical liberals like Locke, Smith and Mill.