I will mention actually... It gets kind of murky when you mention classical liberal values, or lets say, Enlightenment values. Classical liberalism these days I hear described as being on the right. The Liberal Party in Australia is actually a right wing party, for instance. However, historically those values could be seen as on the Left.
Look, there's no such thing as classical liberalism as a modern ideology. This is an artificial anachronism people have made up. Liberalism in the late 18th and 19th centuries was a social and economic movement that stood in opposition to monarchism and mercantilism. These are your voltaires, your adam smiths. Then you have progressives in the late 19th century who advocated social change. The word liberal, in many places, describes the progressives, who are technically descended from the liberals of yore but that liberalism won in every "western" country on Earth once WWII was over (excluding some fascist holdovers like Falangist Spain and Estado Novo in Portugal) so this describes EVERYONE you would ever bother to talk about.
What side would you say Noam Chomsky is on for instance? Yet he holds values I would consider classical liberal, libertarian, and of the Enlightenment.
Noam Chomsky is an anti-capitalist, communitarian, etc. etc. He thinks free market capitalism has pathologized human behavior. He wants complete public ownership of capital. FaSinPat, syndicalist, pro-union... Comparing him to the aforementioned philosophical tradition is completely inaccurate, even if he is "pro free speech" or "anti authoritarianism". GOOGLE MURRAY BOOKCHIN (this is a meme, don't google murray bookchin).
What side is Glenn Greenwald on?
Does he call himself a classical liberal? Besides, The Intercept is like one of the (best, and) wokest news organizations around. They have been hammering hard against ICE for years. They have covered corrupt and racist police practices. Glenn is GAY!
Since it is not clear to you yet... classical liberalism is a shibboleth for people who just want to participate in the anti-woke debate. That's it. Steve Pinker's only two contributions to the public forum are a defense of global capitalism (he is what is known as a DWEIB) and several groans toward college campus liberalism. "Classical liberalism" as a phrase is a thing Jordan Peterson made up in an angry email because he got mad that people kept pegging him as conservative or right wing. Somehow it caught on among other people who, like Peterson, don't know really know much about history. To date, the vast majority of Jordan Peterson's fame has come from trying to organize a counter cultural movement against the SJWs who will literally destroy society by turning into Nazis or Communists. Dave Rubin started using the phrase because he can only use words that other people string together for him (because he is an idiot). Are you seeing a pattern?
You can get by like the rest of us and just say that you're not really into woke culture. I am not into woke culture. I know agrafrag is also not into woke culture. However, if I said I was really anti-woke-culture, and I made this part of my identity, and I went to meetup.com and looked for anti-woke meetups, and I found one at the local bar, and went to their next meetup, there is a good chance I will be hanging out with Proudboys and College Republicans. As someone whose roommate used to host the Sac State Young Republican club meetings, I never want to do that ever again.
I am not conservative. I am a Left winger. I would see myself as an old school left winger who is actually for working class interests.
If this is true, and I suspect it is, I think it would be better if we could get you to start participating in constructive socialist discussion instead of the onanistic circle jerk and intellectual dead end that is wank-dadaism. You are caught in a trap defending people that don't need defending (your last few posts are just you getting triggered over and over again). Let me explain it to you as simply as possible: Mandark, and probably to an extent Oblivion, never said you are conservative, and don't think you are. They just think you're dumb. And they will dunk on you for as long as you give them ammunition. Just give up now.
Noam Chomsky can be described as a 'left-libertarian' and is in fact. Now the roots to the term 'libertarian' is actually to describe anarchists. Libertarian at one point in time was used synonymously with anarchism. I am not saying he is a classical liberal I was saying he has values consistent with classical liberalism, or libertarianism, or the Enlightenment. There is a reason I suggested all three. It is because I was referring to a particular set of values, rather than the entire philosophy, that is consistent within all three.
Classical liberal as a term, is just used to differentiate traditional liberalism(19th century), or
classical liberalism, with modern liberalism. Particularly in America. And in fact people say libertarianism is basically started to differentiate classical liberalism with modern liberalism, which has lost all meaning. It is true that there is very little difference between what could be considered a libertarian viewpoint and a classical liberal viewpoint. And then you could go on to objectivism and Ayn Rand, which could be described as extreme libertarianism or extreme classical liberalism.
The root of liberalism can be summed up in one sentence: The freedom of the individual. It is a philosphy that stemmed from the idea that the individual is sacred. And so what naturally follows is that the state's power over the individual is suspect. Andfollowing from that there is a desire to limit state power or remove it altogether.
You're looking at it from an economic perspective rather than a social one. In terms of the social Noam Chomsky comes at it from the Enlightenment perspective through and through. That is, the freedom of the individual. He is not collective socially, he is most definitely individualistic.
The point I was making is that it is really murky. The line is blurred as where does that base of the individual is sacred then cross from one side to the other? not so clear.
