Classical Liberalism

[Zenith]

---

Because there is a completely absurd amount of false equivocation on these boards I thought it apt to state the position clearly and let it be contended for what it is, rather than through the typical straw men that are in equal parts the responsibility of those who claim to be of this position when they are not "The tea party" and those who care not for the differences because they find it easier to attack the straw man.

Classical Liberalism encompasses the basic ideals.

1. The freedom of the individual is paramount:

The main consideration for all actions, namely politically is this "Does the action promote or thwart the freedoms of the individual"? Classical liberalism states that the government should only act to ensure that the freedoms of consenting adults, making sure that they are free from force, fraud, coercion or negligence. We should not sacrifice the freedoms of individuals for any collective agenda, commonly called "the common good".

Any person should be free to do whatever they like so long as their actions do not involve using force, fraud, coercion of neglecting their responsibilities to others. People with power will often say "we are going to force you to do x because we believe it is in your own best interest to do x". Classical liberals maintain that individuals not only are generally the best at establishing what is in their own best interests, they should have complete responsibilities over their own interests.

2. Establishment of principles.

This is the idea that the principles of individualism should be established and maintained despite what any collective, namely the government, wants to do otherwise. The courts should have the power to strike down any piece of legislation that violates the established principles or rule in favor of the individual who has done what the collective otherwise deem illegal if it is supported by the fundamental principles.

3. Bottom up organization

Structures in reality, from evolution to lives to languages to fashions to markets, are best organized spontaneously and from the bottom up based on the preferences of the individuals. There is no need for a top down approach to markets, no "hand of god/government" to tweak all the settings and rules.

4. Free Markets / Civil Charity.

All economic exchanges should be left to the voluntary actions of individuals, government should not be telling you where to work, how much to save, what needs produced, what companies need your money, who needs healthcare, where to give aid. It should be left entirely to individuals to allocate their productivity where they see fit or where they have agreed to trade.

5. Private property.

Those things obtained by the individual through consensual means are entirely the property of the individual and nobody else. The individual has the full rights and responsibilities for where this property is used and nobody, other individuals or governments, may forcefully remove it.

6. Tolerance

You should not interfere with anyone else simply because you disagree with it. Because you think something is a good thing, the right thing, is no reason to interfere with the actions of others. Simply thinking that something is wrong is not a sufficient reason for action, it is immoral to force your opinions on others. Free speech is an example, we should tolerate speech of which we strongly disagree because it is not our business to tell them how to think and feel.

---

If those are your principles, then I'm curios more about "tolerance" and "freedom of speech" and the "freedom of the individual":
1. Freedom of speech:
How does it conform with instigation to hatred (e.g. vs a particular group), or deceiving (e.g. end of the world in 21st may, perhaps give me money and you'll go to heaven), manipulation of the masses (through false history, twisted news to fit a desired effect ,etc.), dirty words (in public places, perhaps hearing the president/king talking with his fellows stuff like "I don't give a shit about your crap, ya bitches!", now "bitches" being used to male men, whom they are used with such words, and don't find it as an insult).

2. Freedom of the individual:
How far should it go? For instance, if some women go in the park (which is with, well, a lot of people) and get naked and get on their knees, with their elbows on the ground, and their own dogs start to fuck them, should this freedom be allowed to them? If you say "as long as my freedom does not do evil to somebody", then, in this particular case, perhaps the only thing would be that most people don't like doing such things, and therefore, don't like seeing such things. And if you go further and deny any freedom of man that the majority does not like, how is this different than forcing all to be as the main group is? (which is, against the freedom of the individual)

3. Tolerance:
"it is not our business to tell them how to think and feel": you mean it is evil to say to people "be nice people! try to be good! do good!"? And, how does the education of the society go if no-one is allowed to tell them (e.g. in schools) how to think and how to feel?
"Because you think something is a good thing, the right thing, is no reason to interfere with the actions of others. " - so you mean that it is wrong to say "what you do is evil"? You know, it may have a good effect sometimes, like convincing/helping somebody to be a better person.
"it is immoral to force your opinions on others" - so, if you could establish a rule/law, you would never say "we should not allow anybody naked in the park being fucked in his ass by his own dogs"? Because, that is your opinion: there may be others that see things differently, though only a few.