It is true that I'm a liberal, though. More classical than social, but certainly some social.
Social-liberalism has in effect nothing in common with classical liberalism. Therefore, saying you are a classical liberal with "some social" is like saying you are a "little knocked up". The latter, present in even a sub-clinical dosage, pollutes and negates the former
in toto. Let us take that splendid Wikipedia article you cited:
The third paragraph causes the article to pretty well assassinate the concept of social-liberalism, however unintentionally, where it states:
[Social-liberalism] affirms the following principles:
human rights, free and fair
elections and
multiparty democracy,
social justice,
tolerance,
social market economy,
free trade,
environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.[SUP]
[10][/SUP]
This sentence is so fraught with contradiction as to set the clear and capable mind at odds with itself in making the decision where to begin the demolition. But let us move forward in but a most cursory manner and we will discover a few points that in themselves offer sufficiency to destroy the credibility of social-liberalism and demonstrate why one cannot be that as well as a classical-liberal, all in the spirit of setting you straight that you may err no more from this point onward.
Firstly, the notions of "social justice" and "human rights" are mutually exclusive. You cannot have one with the other - the relationship is what we call in the sciences "exclusive or", which is to say, one or the other ONLY. If one defends human rights, and here we are speaking of properly defined rights and not the airy-fairy bullshit the so-called "social-liberal" believes the term to mean, there is no possibility to impose the conditions of "social justice" upon people as those conditions are inherently violent to the rights of the individual. One trivial yet sufficient example in proof of this is the notion of redistribution of wealth where the fruits of one's labors are forcibly expropriated and given to those "less fortunate". This is the core pillar of the concept of "social justice" and it is at
diametric odds with that of human rights,
prima facie. QED.
"Social markets", vis-a-vis
free markets is a similar relationship. So-called "social-markets" are those based not upon properly derived human rights but rather on the wholly erroneous definition that must be used in order for the structure of the concept of "social-liberalism" to be internally consistent in at least the minimally passable degree. Being so based, social-markets substitute properly derived human freedom with that of arbitrarily defined "social justice". As above, the two cannot exist together and once again we note the utterly and violently catastrophic nature of the failure.
Next, "democracy", a favorite term for the pretty slavery (or not so pretty in the eyes of those who are awake and thinking for themselves) of which the social-liberals and other grossly ignorant, intellectually careless and lazy, or corrupt persons are so fond. As any minimally informed person is aware, actual democracy is nothing better than mob rule. It is, in effect, the utter chaos of the strong subjugating the weak to the superior material will of the "majority". Need I go through the more formal steps of demonstrating how violently this mode of social order dispenses with any notion of human rights? We are at three for three. Social liberalism's creds are already destroyed, but let us put another nail in its coffin just for kicks.
"Free trade", vis-a-vis free
markets. Free trade, as currently constituted in law and in practice, is a failed policy the details of which could occupy volumes, so we will skip that here. The name and the reality are at serious odds with one another, the "freedom" being very selectively salted in the favor of one class of persons and most often significantly biased against the rest, this all working in diametric opposition to the notion of free markets and of human rights.
As we can all see, social-liberalism is really a code word denoting a philosophy and practice of extremely large governmental institutions operating in a contextual environment where they despotically control the lives of those who tend to drive toward achievement and excellence in order to "provide" for those who do not. This is all at the same time the preservation of turf while buying the loyalty of the indolent. It is the very pinnacle of tyranny, for it cloaks itself in a mantle of false compassion and moral rectitude that ever so thinly veils the most unimaginably vicious hearts the world has ever known.
If you are indeed a social liberal, you therefore CANNOT be one of the classical variety.
Claro?
