David Boaz is a hero of Liberty! I've loved his stuff since the '80's. Long-time Cato dude. I used to get Cato Audio on CD, before podcasts, and Boaz did some good ones. I've read one or two of his books.
I would consider myself a Rothbardian and I’m a frequent listener of the Tom Woods show. But I don’t get all the criticism in the comments. David Boaz isn’t saying outrageous things here
Tom woods does build a strawman of "them who hate you" and he does badmouth other libertarians... I used to like Tom and Dave Smith... but I wonder if they can tell their friends from their enemies.
I mean… there seems to be too much emphasis on ethnicity (i.e. “rich white guys”). What does it matter (I’m talking about now, in 2024) what someone’s ethnicity is? Aren’t the ideas the thing that matters…?
It’s hard for me to even take these comments seriously. There’s plenty of room to argue David/CATO misses the forest for the trees given their emphasis on a lot of cultural issues (the same way the mises caucus does), but it’s impossible to argue that you’d have libertarianism without liberalism.
In an undated video clip that has now gone viral on social media, Malcolm X can be heard warning fellow black Americans to be wary of the sinister intentions of the ‘liberals.’ A human rights activist and the spokesperson of the Nation of Islam, he was a prominent figure in the United States’ Civil Rights Movement. He said, “There are many whites who are trying to solve the problem. But, you never see them going under the label of liberals.” Malcolm highlighted that the White American who identifies as a liberal is the most ‘dangerous and ‘deceitful’ thing in the Western Hemisphere. The Human Rights activist further compares a liberal to a fox, which unlike the wolf, deceits its prey. In other words, Malcolm X suggested that the ‘liberals’ who claim to be the ones fighting for the rights of black Americans is in fact exploiting them for their own benefits.
For most of the world liberalism=libertarianism, it's just that the term liberalism changed it's meaning, in anglo-sphere in recent years, to leftism. That's why a lot of people call themselfs "classical liberals" and not "liberals". I guess it would be better to use "classical liberalism" in the title to avoid confusion and people having negative knee-jerk reaction.
Sadly, it seems that has become the standard for the current crowd who have assumed the identity of "libertarian". The new wave of psuedolibertarian edge lords seem to have an aversion to reasonable discussion and pragmatic solutions.
Cato has a lot milquetoast libertarians. Many were terrible during the Covid pandemic - they essentially abandoned libertarian principles due to the "emergency." Boaz constantly makes baseless accusations against members of the Mises Institute being white supremacists. I think the main difference between Cato and Mises Institutes is that Cato leans towards the liberal democracy end of libertarianism whereas Mises leans towards the anarcho capitalist end.
In my mind... the world is not binary... there is a spectrum of Libertariansim.... some say 1% of the population some say 15%... why not find the people you agree with... if only on one issue... and work with them... on that one issue? I look for the similarities not the difference... but that is me.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Because the true original classic concept of liberalism has to do with individual liberty and strictly constitutionally limited government.
The problem with people being punished for supporting other points of view is its anti free speech not anti-discrimination. Donating to a political campaign is really donating to support an idea. For democracy to work at all for us to even be able to know what the truth is this has to be respected no matter what that idea is. Otherwise there will be no way of knowing or seriously challenging any popular but bad idea.
Out of touch. The fact that you can't follow why libertarians don't follow you anymore is it. Trump has little to do with it. Truth has everything to do with it. Bye
You sound like a big business lobbiest. Yes, corporations are killing it. But food gas housing and all things needed to live are way more expensive. But hell yeah!!! Long live the corporations
That is something... to think about.... Corporations are legal people crated by government.... I am inclined to believe only God can make a person... still many poeple use the corporate structure and LLC etc... to increase their personal choice....
Watch out. Nick's still brandishing that 4 color pen. Never know when he's going to use the green ink! As for the interview itself, I was hoping it would be a little more enlightening or at least interesting. For example, it's not enough to point out that most libertarians have been white males without some more explanation of that. Because honestly, if you're arguing for the non-aggression principle, why should race or gender have anything at all to do with it? Race and gender are more like cultural artifacts that society is still struggling with than anything in libertarianism. Sure, libertarians could have focused more on racial and gender equality, but it has to be done carefully to distinguish the libertarian view from the typical liberal view. Otherwise, why should libertarians spend so much effort on something that non-libertarians were already doing? So Boaz' critique falls a little flat for me. And sure, libertarianism came out of classical liberalism, but then, so did modern liberalism and conservatism, if you think about it. So simply saying libertarianism came from liberalism isn't saying very much. It's much more important to point out what features of libertarianism came from and/or improved upon classical liberalism. Ultimately, while I think the NAP is enough to base a political philosophy on, libertarians have failed to reach some core point or understanding in mainstream human thought and emotion. We need a better strategy. Or else we can keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As for Biden vs Trump, I cannot believe we're getting this re-run of an election. Sure, Trump is a little bit better than Biden, but that's not saying much. Neither of them is going to be good for America. I think that this undesirable result us due to the Duopoly and now the Duopoly seems to be losing control over their own organization. And one last jab at race and gender: Blacks, latinos, women, gays and others ARE becoming more visible in politics and government, and we're seeing that many of them can be JUST AS BAD on individual rights and liberties as male white politicians in office. So, yay equality? I want a society where everyone can be equally good, not one where everybody is equally bad!
Deary me. I vaguely remember this yoda-looking-mfo from my libertarian days. "Cosmopoilitanism" is a misunderstanding of the kinds of scenario you'd get where big cities in great empires were perforce multicultural. But that kind of vaguely functional mixing is the exception rather than the rule. Ethnicity is the most solid, concrete foundation for home-grown politics, other considerations are secondary, or too abstract, or won't attract enough loyalty. A society is indeed partly the resultant of the libertarian's traditional "spontaneous order;" but a lot of it is actually more designed and deliberate than that, and requires collective activity to set up (mainly on the public goods side of things). Civilizations don't just happen, and require maintenance, but you only get that cross-generational commitment to maintenance where you have strong blood ties as well as cultural and traditional/historical ties. A society is a product in the making so if it's to be made people have to be motivated to make it. Self-interest isn't a strong enough motivation in that area - indeed, pure self-interest would deny the necessity of the occasional self-sacrifice for the collective good (as Ayn Rand rightly saw). Nor would abstract ideals (like liberty or equality) provide the masses the necessary motivation (that would be enough only for some). You need something more primal, with a deeper, more primitive sense of "we" behind it.
@@freesk8 Yeah, libertarianism is internally coherent and consistent, but a system can be internally consistent and coherent while being wrong. Not that it's totally wrong, but really it's more an affair for a settled White culture at the height of its power - IOW as something among Whites (particularly North-Western European Whites and derivatives), for themselves, for their own internal dealings, it's fine, but it can't be extended to other peoples (they have to discover it for themselves, so that they generate it out of themselves, as Whites do). Think about what conditions obtain when a society can be said to be a society of liberty and freedom. The existence of private property rights can't be contingent solely on a judicial system, police, etc., otherwise it couldn't get off the ground at all (if contracts are on shaky ground, then the contract to create Leviathan is itself on shaky ground). There already has to be a predisposition among the people, to let people control whatever they control until and unless they do harm or voluntarily cede control (which is the gist of the rule of private property). And that is a collective principle, a principle of "we" - "this is how _we_ do things here." In that case, then, judicial systems and police exist and have legitimacy only to "tidy up" and put an official stamp on an imperfect scenario that already exists, _not to create the scenario itself._ Locke kind of saw this with his version of the State of Nature: he saw that the group already has to have a predisposition to rule-following, contract-upkeeping, etc., in order for official State systems built on top of that predisposition to function. IOW, when it comes to politics and how groups function as groups, the collective level is logically prior to the individual level. Or to put it another way, the idea of building a society up from a ground level of individual pairwise dealings is a non-starter, because those pairwise dealings already have to be "just."
@@gurugeorge Interesting. What do you think of the voluntary principle? That's the idea (forgive me if you have already heard of it) that in order for something to be moral, it must at least be voluntary, consented to, by all parties directly involved? A society, (in your words, a "WE") that was built on that principle would not be objectionable to many libertarians. You are aware that the anarcho-capitalist branch of the libertarian movement often call themselves voluntarists because of this central (to them) idea...
@@freesk8 It's logically true that an individual act can't be a moral act unless it's voluntary, but on the other hand it's not possible to structure a society based on the principle of consent. (e.g. the criminal rarely consents to being caught and imprisoned.) Any form of social organization necessarily imposes on _some_ people things they don't want to have imposed on them. Society grows organically, from the ground up but not from individual pairwise interactions from the ground up. What the "ground" level is, is relative genetic similarity (obviously so, since for most of human history people mated with people very similar to them). Relative genetic similarity means the people will have similar ways of thinking, etc. Race is _the_ fundamental biological and social reality. (That's not to say that high IQ members of the various races can't get along and understand each other, but we're talking about bulks and masses of peoples, which are basically immiscible.) Think of the studies on monozygotic twins and extrapolate from there, both in terms of cultural similarities arising out of genetic similarities (e.g. it was found that there was significant correlation in even political and religious views for twins reared apart), and in terms of relative genetic closeness leading to a "simpatico" vibe (people understand each other - in the old Scottish term "ken" each other - tacitly, which means, as a point that should be of interest to lovers of liberty, that there's less need for intrusive state action - and that's what would lead to what is pointed at in terms of "voluntarism," but that's really just the ethnostate in other terms). It's really the increase in multiculturalism and multiracialism that's led to an ever more "managerial" state where every little thing has to be spelled out explicitly; if you don't have that tacit background from racial similarity, you have to have explicit rules and forced social order.
@@gurugeorge Any society that is not implemented voluntarily is immoral. Crime falls under that category, too. It's not a part of peaceful society. You are working really hard to justify a society using force on the peaceful citizens within it. Is it taxing the rich that you most hope the society will do? Seems like sophistry to me. And you are right about one thing: you are not a libertarian.
I noticed his eyes didn't open very wide at least in recent decades and at this point in his life they look like narrow slits, which does give him a bit of a Magoo appearance.
That's the most stupid ad hominem I've ever heard. Boaz is a genius, and a great defender of individual liberty. He's a living elder of the libertarian movement. He's written many really good books. He's a gay man, and a really nice guy. Give us something rational to discuss, or go drag your knuckles elsewhere.
Although I had to leave DC (unwillingly) and Libertariansim (willingly), I will never forget his acceptance (about 1993 or 1994) to speak at The 20s Group, a GLBT discussion group, based in Dupont. He was polite, erudite, encouraging, engaging, funny, perhaps even elegant.
@@Ryanrobi Where do I find these people... I think it would be great if I could work with people that I agree with... Harry Browne In HIFF talks about the group trap... where we feel we can only be free when we have convinced everyone to agree with us... I try to avoid that trap.
GOOD STUFF! Do libertarians own the Internet? If so, how can we use that to further our freedom; and How do I find cosmopolitan libertarian podcasts and RUclips Channels?
Progressivism was formed in explicit rejection of liberalism. Of course, it later tried to portray itself as the new, improved liberalism, but that was a lie.
A legend and a true gentleman!
It's good to hear from David again. It's been a long time.
It’s good to hear the proverbial full-throated defense of liberalism and cosmopolitanism from a libertarian intellectual leader.
RIP David Boaz -- had the pleasure to know you back in the 90s, you were a class act and an inspiration to more people than you realized.
He’s dead. Do you think he has internet access?
@@michaelmcpherson8287 you dumb
David Boaz is a hero of Liberty! I've loved his stuff since the '80's. Long-time Cato dude. I used to get Cato Audio on CD, before podcasts, and Boaz did some good ones. I've read one or two of his books.
I would consider myself a Rothbardian and I’m a frequent listener of the Tom Woods show. But I don’t get all the criticism in the comments. David Boaz isn’t saying outrageous things here
Tom woods does build a strawman of "them who hate you" and he does badmouth other libertarians... I used to like Tom and Dave Smith... but I wonder if they can tell their friends from their enemies.
I mean… there seems to be too much emphasis on ethnicity (i.e. “rich white guys”).
What does it matter (I’m talking about now, in 2024) what someone’s ethnicity is? Aren’t the ideas the thing that matters…?
Well, it is true that Karl Marx is a dead white guy.
It’s hard for me to even take these comments seriously. There’s plenty of room to argue David/CATO misses the forest for the trees given their emphasis on a lot of cultural issues (the same way the mises caucus does), but it’s impossible to argue that you’d have libertarianism without liberalism.
Thank you, David.
"You didn't see a lot of libertarians involved in the civil rights movement, critical of Jim Crow"
What, all 10 of them at the time?
I think they mean the intellectual vanguard more than the rank and file
Tell me more; all 10 of whom? (who)
Excellent interview.
Damn right!
Appreciate very much contact
Yes, sure.
This comment section showing people not understanding philosophical liberalism is hilarious to me.
In an undated video clip that has now gone viral on social media, Malcolm X can be heard warning fellow black Americans to be wary of the sinister intentions of the ‘liberals.’ A human rights activist and the spokesperson of the Nation of Islam, he was a prominent figure in the United States’ Civil Rights Movement.
He said, “There are many whites who are trying to solve the problem. But, you never see them going under the label of liberals.” Malcolm highlighted that the White American who identifies as a liberal is the most ‘dangerous and ‘deceitful’ thing in the Western Hemisphere.
The Human Rights activist further compares a liberal to a fox, which unlike the wolf, deceits its prey. In other words, Malcolm X suggested that the ‘liberals’ who claim to be the ones fighting for the rights of black Americans is in fact exploiting them for their own benefits.
For most of the world liberalism=libertarianism, it's just that the term liberalism changed it's meaning, in anglo-sphere in recent years, to leftism. That's why a lot of people call themselfs "classical liberals" and not "liberals". I guess it would be better to use "classical liberalism" in the title to avoid confusion and people having negative knee-jerk reaction.
Sadly, it seems that has become the standard for the current crowd who have assumed the identity of "libertarian". The new wave of psuedolibertarian edge lords seem to have an aversion to reasonable discussion and pragmatic solutions.
Humor is really important... nice to have a salt shaker handy...
Thanks for contact
RIP, David. You were one of the good ones.
RIP and I will read more about your ideas
Line goes up
Birth rate goes down
Success?
Exactly.
Amazing!!!!! 😻
Cato has a lot milquetoast libertarians. Many were terrible during the Covid pandemic - they essentially abandoned libertarian principles due to the "emergency." Boaz constantly makes baseless accusations against members of the Mises Institute being white supremacists. I think the main difference between Cato and Mises Institutes is that Cato leans towards the liberal democracy end of libertarianism whereas Mises leans towards the anarcho capitalist end.
In my mind... the world is not binary... there is a spectrum of Libertariansim.... some say 1% of the population some say 15%... why not find the people you agree with... if only on one issue... and work with them... on that one issue? I look for the similarities not the difference... but that is me.
Liberty FTW
"Free the World?"
Beware of the hand
When it's comin' from the left
I ain't trippin' just watch ya step
Can't truss it
ever challenge the right/left narative?
With libertarians like this, who needs progressives?
liberalism and progressivism are two fundamentally different philosophies
@@Justin_Beaver564 Exactly my point.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Because the true original classic concept of liberalism has to do with individual liberty and strictly constitutionally limited government.
no it's not
The problem with people being punished for supporting other points of view is its anti free speech not anti-discrimination.
Donating to a political campaign is really donating to support an idea.
For democracy to work at all for us to even be able to know what the truth is this has to be respected no matter what that idea is.
Otherwise there will be no way of knowing or seriously challenging any popular but bad idea.
Democracy? come on! do the fucking Math! learn some Social Choice Theory, Read kenneth Arrow! heheh Democracy LOL!
55:36 Great question. No good answer.
Independent Rfk is better choice for pres
1 час назад ,( кстати этот комментарий был написан 20.03.2024 о 18:06 )
Mr Boaz is incorrect in his assessment of the draft. As long as selective service is still in force, the draft can still happen
Like to divide the world into right and wrong? and think you are the best arbitrator?
@@elkinjohnwtf are you babbling about? What I said is 💯 correct. They are one and the same. Said nothing about being an arbiter
Out of touch. The fact that you can't follow why libertarians don't follow you anymore is it. Trump has little to do with it. Truth has everything to do with it. Bye
Who is this "out of touch" who is this "Libertarians?"
[*]
You sound like a big business lobbiest. Yes, corporations are killing it. But food gas housing and all things needed to live are way more expensive. But hell yeah!!! Long live the corporations
thank the government for life getting more expensive
That is something... to think about.... Corporations are legal people crated by government.... I am inclined to believe only God can make a person... still many poeple use the corporate structure and LLC etc... to increase their personal choice....
Ope, Mises Caucus nonsense showing up in the comments.
Watch out. Nick's still brandishing that 4 color pen. Never know when he's going to use the green ink!
As for the interview itself, I was hoping it would be a little more enlightening or at least interesting. For example, it's not enough to point out that most libertarians have been white males without some more explanation of that. Because honestly, if you're arguing for the non-aggression principle, why should race or gender have anything at all to do with it? Race and gender are more like cultural artifacts that society is still struggling with than anything in libertarianism. Sure, libertarians could have focused more on racial and gender equality, but it has to be done carefully to distinguish the libertarian view from the typical liberal view. Otherwise, why should libertarians spend so much effort on something that non-libertarians were already doing? So Boaz' critique falls a little flat for me.
And sure, libertarianism came out of classical liberalism, but then, so did modern liberalism and conservatism, if you think about it. So simply saying libertarianism came from liberalism isn't saying very much. It's much more important to point out what features of libertarianism came from and/or improved upon classical liberalism.
Ultimately, while I think the NAP is enough to base a political philosophy on, libertarians have failed to reach some core point or understanding in mainstream human thought and emotion. We need a better strategy. Or else we can keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
As for Biden vs Trump, I cannot believe we're getting this re-run of an election. Sure, Trump is a little bit better than Biden, but that's not saying much. Neither of them is going to be good for America. I think that this undesirable result us due to the Duopoly and now the Duopoly seems to be losing control over their own organization.
And one last jab at race and gender: Blacks, latinos, women, gays and others ARE becoming more visible in politics and government, and we're seeing that many of them can be JUST AS BAD on individual rights and liberties as male white politicians in office. So, yay equality? I want a society where everyone can be equally good, not one where everybody is equally bad!
I try to get out of my head... and make reality my friend.
What a load of rubbish! .Complete nonsense with no good reason or direction.Dear lord!
Boaz. Where did i hear that name before... oy vey.
Deary me. I vaguely remember this yoda-looking-mfo from my libertarian days. "Cosmopoilitanism" is a misunderstanding of the kinds of scenario you'd get where big cities in great empires were perforce multicultural. But that kind of vaguely functional mixing is the exception rather than the rule. Ethnicity is the most solid, concrete foundation for home-grown politics, other considerations are secondary, or too abstract, or won't attract enough loyalty.
A society is indeed partly the resultant of the libertarian's traditional "spontaneous order;" but a lot of it is actually more designed and deliberate than that, and requires collective activity to set up (mainly on the public goods side of things). Civilizations don't just happen, and require maintenance, but you only get that cross-generational commitment to maintenance where you have strong blood ties as well as cultural and traditional/historical ties. A society is a product in the making so if it's to be made people have to be motivated to make it. Self-interest isn't a strong enough motivation in that area - indeed, pure self-interest would deny the necessity of the occasional self-sacrifice for the collective good (as Ayn Rand rightly saw). Nor would abstract ideals (like liberty or equality) provide the masses the necessary motivation (that would be enough only for some). You need something more primal, with a deeper, more primitive sense of "we" behind it.
You are clearly not a libertarian anymore. Ah, well.
@@freesk8 Yeah, libertarianism is internally coherent and consistent, but a system can be internally consistent and coherent while being wrong. Not that it's totally wrong, but really it's more an affair for a settled White culture at the height of its power - IOW as something among Whites (particularly North-Western European Whites and derivatives), for themselves, for their own internal dealings, it's fine, but it can't be extended to other peoples (they have to discover it for themselves, so that they generate it out of themselves, as Whites do).
Think about what conditions obtain when a society can be said to be a society of liberty and freedom. The existence of private property rights can't be contingent solely on a judicial system, police, etc., otherwise it couldn't get off the ground at all (if contracts are on shaky ground, then the contract to create Leviathan is itself on shaky ground). There already has to be a predisposition among the people, to let people control whatever they control until and unless they do harm or voluntarily cede control (which is the gist of the rule of private property).
And that is a collective principle, a principle of "we" - "this is how _we_ do things here." In that case, then, judicial systems and police exist and have legitimacy only to "tidy up" and put an official stamp on an imperfect scenario that already exists, _not to create the scenario itself._ Locke kind of saw this with his version of the State of Nature: he saw that the group already has to have a predisposition to rule-following, contract-upkeeping, etc., in order for official State systems built on top of that predisposition to function.
IOW, when it comes to politics and how groups function as groups, the collective level is logically prior to the individual level. Or to put it another way, the idea of building a society up from a ground level of individual pairwise dealings is a non-starter, because those pairwise dealings already have to be "just."
@@gurugeorge Interesting. What do you think of the voluntary principle? That's the idea (forgive me if you have already heard of it) that in order for something to be moral, it must at least be voluntary, consented to, by all parties directly involved? A society, (in your words, a "WE") that was built on that principle would not be objectionable to many libertarians. You are aware that the anarcho-capitalist branch of the libertarian movement often call themselves voluntarists because of this central (to them) idea...
@@freesk8 It's logically true that an individual act can't be a moral act unless it's voluntary, but on the other hand it's not possible to structure a society based on the principle of consent. (e.g. the criminal rarely consents to being caught and imprisoned.)
Any form of social organization necessarily imposes on _some_ people things they don't want to have imposed on them.
Society grows organically, from the ground up but not from individual pairwise interactions from the ground up. What the "ground" level is, is relative genetic similarity (obviously so, since for most of human history people mated with people very similar to them). Relative genetic similarity means the people will have similar ways of thinking, etc.
Race is _the_ fundamental biological and social reality. (That's not to say that high IQ members of the various races can't get along and understand each other, but we're talking about bulks and masses of peoples, which are basically immiscible.)
Think of the studies on monozygotic twins and extrapolate from there, both in terms of cultural similarities arising out of genetic similarities (e.g. it was found that there was significant correlation in even political and religious views for twins reared apart), and in terms of relative genetic closeness leading to a "simpatico" vibe (people understand each other - in the old Scottish term "ken" each other - tacitly, which means, as a point that should be of interest to lovers of liberty, that there's less need for intrusive state action - and that's what would lead to what is pointed at in terms of "voluntarism," but that's really just the ethnostate in other terms).
It's really the increase in multiculturalism and multiracialism that's led to an ever more "managerial" state where every little thing has to be spelled out explicitly; if you don't have that tacit background from racial similarity, you have to have explicit rules and forced social order.
@@gurugeorge Any society that is not implemented voluntarily is immoral. Crime falls under that category, too. It's not a part of peaceful society. You are working really hard to justify a society using force on the peaceful citizens within it. Is it taxing the rich that you most hope the society will do? Seems like sophistry to me. And you are right about one thing: you are not a libertarian.
libertarian? kek dude sounds like a mashup between a neocon and a progressive, which is what the regime types are anyway
This channel is Israel 1st for $$$
the shekel shuffle
I'll skip this interview with Mr Magoo.
😂😂😂
He is probably undergoing some chemo.. Your ignorant comment speaks for itself.You must be a real gem.in person.
He is probably undergoing chemo genius
I noticed his eyes didn't open very wide at least in recent decades and at this point in his life they look like narrow slits, which does give him a bit of a Magoo appearance.
That's the most stupid ad hominem I've ever heard. Boaz is a genius, and a great defender of individual liberty. He's a living elder of the libertarian movement. He's written many really good books. He's a gay man, and a really nice guy. Give us something rational to discuss, or go drag your knuckles elsewhere.
Reincarnated as a worker ant.
Although I had to leave DC (unwillingly) and Libertariansim (willingly), I will never forget his acceptance (about 1993 or 1994) to speak at The 20s Group, a GLBT discussion group, based in Dupont. He was polite, erudite, encouraging, engaging, funny, perhaps even elegant.
I'm out! this channel is compromised.
Lmfao
😂 who wants to listen to only people you agree with 100% of the time?
Idk about compromised, but definitely miss the old reason
Most Libertarians are really just leftists masquerading as Centrists.
@@Ryanrobi Where do I find these people... I think it would be great if I could work with people that I agree with... Harry Browne In HIFF talks about the group trap... where we feel we can only be free when we have convinced everyone to agree with us... I try to avoid that trap.
GOOD STUFF! Do libertarians own the Internet? If so, how can we use that to further our freedom; and How do I find cosmopolitan libertarian podcasts and RUclips Channels?
Is there a typo in the title? Liberalism is absolutely not libertarianism..
Lmfao, good joke
Libertarianism is descendent of the liberal tradition.
Progressivism was formed in explicit rejection of liberalism. Of course, it later tried to portray itself as the new, improved liberalism, but that was a lie.
Classical liberalism, not modern liberalism.
@@macsnafu classical liberalism is racist sexist and homophobic