I Am A Liberal* (EP. 367)

Introduction:

*Classical liberal, that is. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty, and equal rights. They believed these goals required a free economy with minimal government interference. The first liberals won the initial levels of, well, liberalism, against the illiberal monarchy of King John in 1215 with the signing of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta (Magna Carta). 

With that signing, the world took its first steps away from the illiberal monarchies and other dictatorships that covered the world toward the liberal democracies that appear in the world today. 

Liberal meant free, as in free from autocratic rule, replacing that with a democracy where the people choose their leaders (not rulers). Liberal did not mean free as in most things ought to be free to the people who vote for certain politicians. Has the word liberal been hijacked to mean, “Free for you if you vote for me?”

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Words such as liberal, liberty, libertarian and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means “free”. One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man.

Let’s hear from https://www.wsj.com/news/author/barton-swaim (Barton Swain) writing in the Wall Street Journal, “Liberalism is in trouble. I don’t mean the narrow “liberalism” of the post-1960s Democratic Party, although that’s in trouble, too. I mean liberalism in the wider, classical sense—a view of government and society embracing free markets, representative democracy, individual freedom, strict limits on state power, and religious neutrality.”

That’s exactly what liberal meant, and still means to me.

Free markets instead of business and commerce controlled by the monarch or the dictator. 

Representative Democracy. Not rule by unmotivated, disinterested people who are cajoled into voting. And certainly not rule by career politicians who are in their professions primarily to acquire, increase and keep power. 

Individual freedom. That’s the default condition. Any abridgement of individual freedom must be proven to be necessary not simply assumed while freedoms are sacrificed for the “greater good.”

Strict limit on state power. Similar to the above, our Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the government; any assumed powers beyond those are by definition unconstitutional.

Religious neutrality. That includes not allowing, and certainly not encouraging, state-tainted, quasi religions like CRT, climate change, COVID beliefs, government largesse and paternalism, etc. The primary tactic in every case is to present opinions masquerading as fact, then rewarding the believers, and insulting, castigating and cancelling the non-believers. I am not saying that all of the above have no foundation in at least some truth, any more than I am saying that none of the religions of the world have any foundation in truth. I am saying that much of the time truth is used in the presentations of these beliefs only when convenient. Then emotion, presentation skills and appeals to those in certain groups, ethnicities and those with biases and prejudices take over. Now that I have ruffled some feathers, let’s go on.

From time-to-time, I am asked to identify myself as a conservative or a liberal. More often, I am labeled as one or the other after someone hears or reads only one opinion of mine. For example, if they listen to an episode about fiscal responsibility, they assume that I am a conservative. Conversely, if they listen to an episode where I am promoting vaccines, they assume that I am a liberal. And once someone labels me, they expect that I will follow the religious-like complete dogma they associate with that label. And many people act that way themselves; once they adopt a label, they adopt