Social Liberalism: An evil, anti-American, anti-democratic, oppressive recipe for tyranny
Classical liberalism embraces a society in which the course of events is determined by the decisions of individuals rather than by the actions of an autonomous, Fascist aristocracy
Contrary to efforts by the Fascist Left to claim conservatism is tyranny, the chains of bondage to a dictatorial government are broken by the true conservative movement in the U.S., classical liberalism. (Photo Illustration: Pam Dyer/America’s Conservative Voice) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
America has, over the last 60 years, pitted so-called liberals against conservatives. But what you call a “liberal” today is really a Fascist, and classical liberalism is really conservatism. It is about limited government and a laissez-faire approach to the national economy.
Laisse-faire is a French phrase that, quite simply, means “leave it alone.” The concept came from the economic theories of Adam Smith, the 18th-century Scot whose writings greatly influenced the growth of American capitalism.
Smith believed that private interests should have a free rein. As long as markets were free and competitive, he said, the actions of private individuals, motivated by self-interest, would work together for the greater good of society. Smith did favor some forms of government intervention, mainly to establish the ground rules for free enterprise.
He saw the federal government as the umpire, calling balls and strikes on the economic field but essentially staying out of the business of running the economy. It was his advocacy of laissez-faire practices that earned him favor in America, a country built on faith in the individual and distrust of authority.
Classical liberalism is a political and economic ideology that advocates the protection of civil liberties and economic freedom by limiting the power of the central government. Developed in the early 19th century, the term is often used in contrast to the philosophy of modern social liberalism.
Based on a belief that social progress was best achieved through adherence to natural law and individualism, classical liberals drew on the economic ideas of Smith in his classic 1776 book “The Wealth of Nations.” Classical liberals also agreed with Thomas Hobbes’ belief that governments were created by the people for the purpose of minimizing conflict between individuals and that financial incentive was the best way to motivate workers. They feared a welfare state as a danger to a free market economy.
On an equal footing with social and political freedom, classical liberals advocate a level of economic freedom that leaves individuals free to invent and produce new products and processes, create and maintain wealth, and trade freely with others.
To the classical liberal, the essential goal of government is to facilitate an economy in which any person is allowed the greatest possible chance to achieve his or her life goals. Indeed, classical liberals view economic freedom as the best, if not the only way to ensure a thriving and prosperous society.
Critics argue that classical liberalism’s brand of economics is inherently evil, overemphasizing monetary profit through unchecked capitalism and simple greed. However, one of the key beliefs of classical liberalism is that the goals, activities, and behaviors of a healthy economy are ethically praiseworthy.
The father of classical liberalism, economist, theologian and philopher Adam Smith, strongly believed in civil liberties, free enterprise and limited government. (Painting: “Muir Portrait”/Artist Unknown) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Classical liberals believe that a healthy economy is one that allows a maximum degree of free exchange of goods and services between individuals. In such exchanges, they argue, both parties end up better off — clearly a virtuous rather than an evil outcome.
The last economic tenant of classical liberalism is that individuals should be allowed to decide how to dispose of the profits realized by their own effort free from government or political intervention.
Classical liberals believe that individuals should be free to pursue and protect their own economic self-interest free from undue interference by the central government. To accomplish that, classical liberals advocated a minimal government, limited to only six functions:
Protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market.
Defend the nation against foreign invasion.
Enact laws to protect citizens from harms committed against them by other citizens, including protection of private property and enforcement of contracts.
Create and maintain public institutions, such as government agencies.
Provide a stable currency and a standard of weights and measures.
Build and maintain public roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications systems, and postal services.
Classical liberalism holds that rather than granting the fundamental rights of the people, governments are formed by the people for the express purpose of protecting those rights. In asserting this, they point to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which states that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” and that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”
Spawned by 18th-century thinkers like Smith and John Locke, the politics of classical liberalism diverged drastically from older political systems that placed rule over the people in the hands of churches, monarchs, or totalitarian government. In this manner, the politics of classical liberalism values the freedom of individuals over that of central government officials.
Classical liberals rejected the idea of direct democracy — government shaped solely by a majority vote of citizens — because majorities might not always respect personal property rights or economic freedom.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison ― who would become the nation’s fourth president ― spoke against a “direct democracy” in which everyone had a vote for every issue. He instead endorsed the Constitutional Republic we have today. (Painting: James Madison/Charles Gilbert Stuart) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As expressed by James Madison in Federalist 21, classical liberalism favored a constitutional republic, reasoning that in a pure democracy a “common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole [...] and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.”
Classical liberalism embraces a society in which the course of events is determined by the decisions of individuals rather than by the actions of an autonomous, Fascist aristocracy
Key to the classical liberal’s approach to sociology is the principle of spontaneous order — the theory that stable social order evolves and is maintained not by human design or government power, but by random events and processes seemingly beyond the control or understanding of humans. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, referred to this concept as the power of the “invisible Hand.”
For example, classical liberalism argues that the long-term trends of market-based economies are the result of the “invisible Hand” of spontaneous order due to the volume and complexity of the information required to accurately predict and respond to market fluctuations.
Classical liberals view spontaneous order as the result of allowing entrepreneurs, rather than governments, to recognize and provide for the needs of the society while trusting in the power of the Almighty to plan only the best for His people.
In essence, classical liberalism favors economic freedom, limited government, and protection of basic human rights, such as those in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. These core tenets of classical liberalism can be seen in the areas of economics, government, politics, and sociology.
In other words, it is what is known in our modern age as a conservative philosophy.
Modern social liberalism evolved from classical liberalism around 1900. Social liberalism differs from classical liberalism in two main areas: Individual liberty and the role of government in society.
In his seminal 1969 essay “Two Concepts of Liberty,” British social and political theorist Isaiah Berlin asserts that liberty can be both negative and positive in nature. Positive liberty is simply the freedom to do something. Negative liberty is the absence of restraints or barriers limiting individual freedoms.
Classical liberals favor negative rights to the extent that governments and other people should not be allowed to interfere with the free market or natural individual freedoms. Social liberals regularly violate both tenets.
Social liberalism makes individual rights more complex than simply life, liberty and property, as are all outlined in the Bill of Rights. They have recently “discovered” other individual rights such as abortion and healthcare. (Photo: Jan Frederich/Associated Press File) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Modern social liberals believe that individuals have positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to a minimum living wage, and — more recently — the right to abortions and health care. By necessity, guaranteeing positive rights requires government intervention in the form of protective legislative and higher taxes than those required to ensure negative rights.
Social liberals demand that the government protect individual freedoms, regulate the marketplace, and correct social inequities. According to social liberalism, the government — rather than a free society itself — should address issues such as poverty, health care, and income inequality while also respecting the rights of individuals.
Despite their apparent divergence from the tenets of free-market capitalism, socially liberal policies have been adopted by most capitalist countries. In the United States, the term social liberalism is used to describe progressivism as opposed to conservatism. Especially noticeable in the area of fiscal policy, social liberals are more likely to advocate higher levels of government spending and taxation than classical liberals.
Today’s social liberals rarely hide their antipathy toward history and tradition in the United States. They have become Fascists, even though they try to equate that term through historic inaccuracy to conservatives. These Fascists long ago hijacked the word “liberal” and redefined it as being progressive.
Make no mistake, today’s “liberals” are regressive, dictatorial and arrogant Fascists who make the classic mistake of tyrants throughout history: They believe they are the smartest people on the planet and no one may dare question them in their efforts to rule governments, societies and individual lives.
Like Hitler and the Nazis before them, however, today’s American Fascists ― trying to hide behind the murky ill-defineda terms “liberals,” “democrats” and “progressives” ― are ignorant bloviating fools who can’t afford to let their ideas be debated, as such discussion will expose them for the small-minded, small-principled corrupt thugs most of them are at their deepest, darkest level.
The Fascist of today ― virtually anyone who identifies as a Democrat or a “liberal” ― wants nothing but pure power, control and the ability to punish the rest of us. Their shadowy leaders who rarely come on in the light of day ― think George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, Bill Gates and his moral corruptness, Mark Zuckerberg and his suspected pedophilia ― are nothing but purely evil toads who want to suck the democracy out of the United States of America.
Their driving emotion is hatred for all that is good, and their driving force is fear ― their own, of what this nation which was given its rights and destiny by Almighty God, is now and even more so, what it can be. This political pestulance strives as ants against the hurricane in this life, knowing full well what awaits them in the next.
They must win the fight against God on Earth in hopes of defeating His condemnation of them in the afterlife. They have already lost.
Mike Nichols is an advocate of the counterrevolution with a four-step plan to defeat Leftist Fascism: We Organize. We Stand. We Resist. We Fight. He is a regular contributor to several conservative news websites and has a regular blog and Facebook presence at Americas Conservative Voice-Facebook.