What kind of classical liberalism do you favour?

[Liberty.Philosopher]

And why?

I've been reading a bit of Objectivism recently. When done well, it is as robust as any other political philosophy I've come across.

[ron]

Don't know - why not summarise them for us simple folk in your own words?

[Liberty.Philosopher]

Don't know - why not summarise them for us simple folk in your own words?

Austrian School. Consequentialist, which means that liberty is regarded as important because of the beneficial outcomes that it gives rise to, not because of the moral significance of individual rights. Relies on apriori assumptions about the principles of economic action, rather than evidence. It is axiomatic that the state is less efficient, there is no need to prove it by highlighting the manifest failures of the state. Well known for its justification for the role of entrepreneurs in a free economy, and it's explanation of the business cycle. Hayek, Kirzner, Mises.
Chicago School. Also consequentialist. Relies on evidence to document the manifest failures of the state, and the superiority of markets. Perhaps the most well known and influential form of classical liberalism, although by no means the most interesting. Milton Friedman, Gary Becker.
Public Choice. Applies economic analysis to government. The original purpose of this was to debunk the myth that public servants (politicians, public sector employees) are public interested. Their activities are to be understood in terms of individual self interest. Like everyone else. Well known for articulating the concept of rent-seeking, the pursuit of undeserved rewards through political action. The absence of pricing and competition in the public sector provides considerable scope for rent seeking. Buchanan, Tullock.
Nozick. A natural rights libertarian which means that individual liberty is justified in terms of the characteristics of human beings, ie., their inherent capacity for exercising liberty in appropriate ways. This is a Kantian approach which accepts people's preferences as they are. Individuals already have the capacity for rational choice, what they require is the freedom to exercise it. This would contrast, for example, with those who believe that individual preferences are inherently flawed, even self-destructive. Nozick is also deontological, which means that individual rights are inalienable and cannot be violated, even if this could improve outcomes.
Objectivism. Also a natural rights approach, which argues that people require liberty in order to take the rational action that is necessary for them to survive and prosper. This approach does not accept people's preferences as they are. Preferences are acceptable when they are informed by a rational epistemology. Individual action must follow from these rationally determined preferences. Still, people should be free to fail, even though it is better that they do not. Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden.
Anarcho-capitalism. Those who endorse voluntary action without even a minimal state. The reason for this, they say, is that even a minimal state is unjust or inefficient (see below). Moreover, individuals are quite capable of protecting themselves from coercion, either alone as individuals, or by affiliating to a private protection agency. Anarcho-capitalism can be consequentialist or deontological. Murray Rothbard, David Friedman.

[ron]

A bit boring but after reading your summary I ended up voting the same as you...or was that just clever manipulation on your part?! I am too practical a chap to fully embrace liberalism today but it should surely be the long term ideal the human race is aiming for.

[Liberty.Philosopher]

I'll concede, it ain't bedtime reading.

I think we are talking about a very long-term future, given current political realities, and those that are likely to prevail for the foreseeable.

The good thing about Objectivism, however, is that it invites the individual to to start the process of change now in his or her own life, not by canvassing for votes, but by living according to a particular code of individualist ethics (where they have a choice). I'm inclining to the view that party politics is a futile exercise anyway since if in the unlikely event that a classical liberal informed government were formed, what could it actually do to promote liberty. And the required policies would probably prove to be so unpopular (given the extent of rent-seeking) that it would probably lose the following election

[Road_Hog]

Why, when I read the word liberalism, do I hear the word Marxism? It's rather like using the word progressive, only Marxists use it

[Liberty.Philosopher]

Why, when I read the word liberalism, do I hear the word Marxism? It's rather like using the word progressive, only Marxists use it

I kind of know what you mean. Strictly speaking, "liberalism" meant a philosophy which argued that it is up to individuals to take responsibility for their lives. Liberalism today means all kinds of things, including arguments that do not appear to be too far removed from the left. We need to re-discover our distinctiveness, that is the argument for individual liberty, and nothing else.