Lately, the term classical liberal is often used to refer to older non woke liberals. I heard Sam Harris refer to himself as a "classical liberal". Another good reason to use libertarian.
The Economist calls itself "classical liberals", and their political view is not quite libertarian, something they like to point out - they are to the left of libertarians.
I've always understood 'classical liberal' to be a hypernym of 'libertarian.' So libertarianism is a specific ('extreme' some would say) subtype of classical liberalism.
I think libertarianism proper is based on some account of individual rights as the moral basis of a free society, while classical liberals do not take individual rights as the moral foundation of a free society.
"Libertarian" is a term associated with the insane and toxic people who currently run the misnamed Libertarian Party. That's reason enough for serious people to never use the term again.
Bryan: Kudos for posting and thus helping to preserve these great lectures by Prof. Raico, which I enjoyed listening to on cassette tape for years. One point of clarification. During the Q & A of the second lecture, he was asked what conservatives meant by certain laments about the Enlightenment. (47 min mark). The difficulty there is that the Enlightenment is akin to a bundle or package of ideas and Prof. Raico did not have the benefit of any quote or context. The occasional laments in conservative circles usually pertain to one aspect of Enlightenment thought--the proposition that objective morality can be derived from reason. This is a proposition that is still debated in philosophical circles today, including among non-conservatives. On the spur of the moment, Prof. Raico tried to think of those who were hostile to the Enlightenment more generally and so mentions Hitler. That reply creates some confusion because it does not address the narrow lament mentioned above. Prof. Raico certainly knew that the holocaust horrified the Western world because Judeo-Christian values ran so deep.
We need both liberals and conservatives. The conservatives need to help the liberals regain control of the Democratic Party, perhaps by crossing the aisle when they manage to come up with a good idea.
Lately, the term classical liberal is often used to refer to older non woke liberals. I heard Sam Harris refer to himself as a "classical liberal". Another good reason to use libertarian.
The Economist calls itself "classical liberals", and their political view is not quite libertarian, something they like to point out - they are to the left of libertarians.
I've always understood 'classical liberal' to be a hypernym of 'libertarian.' So libertarianism is a specific ('extreme' some would say) subtype of classical liberalism.
Great to see Ralph Raico materials, Bryan, thank you!
RE my disapproval of calling leftism "liberal":
Here are ten reasons why you should not call leftists "liberals":
https://isi.org/intercollegiate-review/10-reasons-call-leftists-liberal/
Here is a piece on the 1770s christening of "liberal" with a political meaning:
https://www.svensktidskrift.se/dan-klein-the-liberal-christening/
I think libertarianism proper is based on some account of individual rights as the moral basis of a free society, while classical liberals do not take individual rights as the moral foundation of a free society.
"Libertarian" is a term associated with the insane and toxic people who currently run the misnamed Libertarian Party. That's reason enough for serious people to never use the term again.
Bryan: Kudos for posting and thus helping to preserve these great lectures by Prof. Raico, which I enjoyed listening to on cassette tape for years. One point of clarification. During the Q & A of the second lecture, he was asked what conservatives meant by certain laments about the Enlightenment. (47 min mark). The difficulty there is that the Enlightenment is akin to a bundle or package of ideas and Prof. Raico did not have the benefit of any quote or context. The occasional laments in conservative circles usually pertain to one aspect of Enlightenment thought--the proposition that objective morality can be derived from reason. This is a proposition that is still debated in philosophical circles today, including among non-conservatives. On the spur of the moment, Prof. Raico tried to think of those who were hostile to the Enlightenment more generally and so mentions Hitler. That reply creates some confusion because it does not address the narrow lament mentioned above. Prof. Raico certainly knew that the holocaust horrified the Western world because Judeo-Christian values ran so deep.
There's a fantastic lecture series by him on mises.org
(About Raico's first lecture above): history is yesterday's lies (per today's lies about them).
We need both liberals and conservatives. The conservatives need to help the liberals regain control of the Democratic Party, perhaps by crossing the aisle when they manage to come up with a good idea.