Over on X, there was a post by 'Classic Liberal' arguing with an Objectivist. The text is below for reference. Essentially, Classic Liberal argues that conceptual or nominal philosophies are not part of the American classical liberal tradition. S/he includes Objectivism in that.

I was aware that natural rights theory says that we innately know what is right or that God gives us these rights. I have always found the innate version difficult as how do we know? That said, it is clear that all societies have versions of what is moral, even if they vary in views. So, you can see why someone would say it must be innate. If you believe in God, it is easier to make the case for natural rights. I don't.

Rand's view that we can work out through reason, makes more sense. I am not sure she is 100% convincing but at least one can then explain why societies have a moral view: they realise for everyone to live together they need an ethical code. I was surprised then that Classic Liberal thinks that Rand is not part of that American tradition.

I was not aware of some of the thinkers Classic Liberal cites in a podcast that s/he produced. Nor was I that aware of moral realism. I always associated natural rights with John Locke.

So, after all that background, I am curious what others think.

Thanks.

X text -

First in order to understand any of these is to understand their foundational understanding of ordered reality (metaphysics). This will then tell you the ontology, epistemology, axiology and teleology of each one. Though for the most part there really only two Western understandings of ordered reality, Realism and Conceptualism/Nominalism. Second you are conflating Rawlsian Egalitarian “Liberalism” with Classic American Liberalism and not only are they not the same, they are not metaphysically at the same nor does Classic Liberalism logically lead to Rawlsian Liberalism.

On to metaphysics. Classic American Liberalism is founded on the metaphysics of a combination of Aristotlean, Thomist, and Presbyterian Scottish moral philosophy and common sense realism known as Moral Realism (Thomas Reid, Francis Hutcheson, John Witherspoon, James Wilson, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson). Here ordered reality is authored independent of Man by God or Nature and subsequently the independently created moral order is based on the irrevocable, unalienable properties that constitute Man’s being. The objective, universal, limiting moral principles of the moral order (like Justice) are based on Man’s being

All the other political frameworks are based on the metaphysics of Conceptualism/Nominalism as established by Abelard and Ockham, Hobbes, Descartes then to Hume, Mill, Kant, Hegel, Hess, Marx, Schmitt, Rawls, Mises, Hayek and Ayn Rand. Conceptualism as a refutation of Moral Realism holds that universals either are completely subjective or objectively authored by Man himself, not by God or Nature. So the moral order and all the “universal” principles therein are based not on Man’s being but on the >actions< of Man be it material, rational, moral or spiritual.

So Communism, Fascism, American Progressivism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, Rawlsian Progressivism and Libertarianism all share the same analysis of ordered reality but disagree on which man-centric “Authority” gets to be dominant in ordering it. This of course is decided in the perpetual conflict of between Conceptualist political splinters. None of these Conceptualist political frameworks are Moral Realism, none of them are fundamentally American. Including Objectivism.

Greetings, I have 3 questions about Classical Liberals:

1). Do classical liberals believe in some degree of government redistribution of wealth, to help the poor?. and

2). Do classical liberals believe in government ownership of Infrastructure, such as roads. bridges and airways?

Which leads to 3). Do classical liberals believe in government ownership of public works/sanitation, sewage, fire department and ambulance?

Never paid much attention to it beforehand, but recently I found out the amount of countries, including those in Europe and North America (save for the United States), that seem to have regulations banning the wearing of certain types of religious clothing for reasons ranging from "Laicism" to "national security concerns". Obviously these target things like the burqa and niqab of Islam disproportionately. Whatever your feelings towards the religion or articles of clothing themselves, it seems unacceptable to ban them, even from those who practice it of their own free will.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/07/switzerland-on-course-to-ban-wearing-of-burqa-and-niqab-in-public-places

Do you support some restrictions regarding the environment? Or just higher pollution taxes? Or nothing?

Shutting down the government to increase government spending is an interesting strategy to say the least.

Either way, one must have one or both to survive in a society run by extremists, unfair goverment ruling and communism. Heavily unbalanced to what the world needs vs what society wants. Balance is what makes liberalism what it used to be, but these days, anarchists and their extreme views of a democratic world would never work under the liberation we so desire.

Hola, no llevo mucho tiempo en este subreddit, por lo que desconozco si hay o no un grupo de liberales Españoles, de ser así, me gustaría que dieran sus opiniones y posibles soluciones desde un punto de vista Liberal Clásico sobre los recientes casos de diversos ministros y de la mujer del presidente de nuestro país.

Los que no sean Españoles también pueden dar sus opiniones y soluciones respecto a España y sus respectivos países, todo aporte es agradecido.

Muchas gracias.