In the modern political landscape, terms are often wielded as weapons, their original meanings obscured by the fog of partisan conflict. Few terms have suffered this fate more than “liberalism.” To understand the world today, we must look back to its philosophical ancestor: classical liberalism. This is not merely a historical political position but a comprehensive philosophy of freedom, rooted in the Enlightenment, that champions the sovereign individual as the fundamental unit of society. It is a worldview built on reason, individual rights, and strictly limited government, principles that resonate now more than ever.
John Locke was a pivotal 17th-century English philosopher and a leading figure of the Enlightenment, often called the “Father of Liberalism.” He famously argued that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that legitimate government can only be formed through the consent of the governed to protect those rights.
Adam Smith was an 18th-century Scottish philosopher and economist who is considered the father of modern economics. In his monumental work *The Wealth of Nations*, he argued that in a free market, individuals pursuing their own rational self-interest are guided by an “invisible hand” to inadvertently generate prosperity for society as a whole.
John Stuart Mill was a highly influential 19th-century British philosopher and a key figure in classical liberalism. In his seminal work *On Liberty*, he championed free speech and articulated the “harm principle,” which posits that the only justifiable reason to interfere with an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others.
The roots of classical liberalism run deep into the soil of the 17th and 18th centuries, nourished by thinkers who dared to challenge the absolute authority of the state and the church. John Locke provided the foundational concept of natural rights: the inherent right to life, liberty, and property, which exist prior to and independent of any government. Following him, Adam Smith articulated the economic dimension of this freedom in *The Wealth of Nations*, demonstrating how individuals pursuing their own rational self-interest create widespread prosperity. As this philosophy matured, thinkers of the 19th century, most notably John Stuart Mill, refined its social dimensions, championing absolute freedom of speech and establishing the “harm principle”—the idea that individual liberty is sacrosanct unless it causes direct harm to others. These ideas were revolutionary, placing the individual, armed with reason, at the center of the moral universe.
Over time, especially in the 20th century, the term “liberalism” was co-opted by movements advocating for expanded government intervention. The original champions of liberty found their banner carried by those with opposing goals. Consequently, the ideas of classical liberalism found a new home under the broader ideological umbrella of “libertarianism.” Today, classical liberalism is best understood as a philosophical branch of libertarianism, one grounded in deep principles and historical precedent. It shares this ideological space with other branches, such as anarcho-capitalism (ANCAP), which advocates for the complete abolition of the state, but it maintains its distinct identity as a complete philosophical framework rather than a purely political conclusion.
This distinction between a philosophy and an ideology is crucial. A philosophy is a foundational system of thought; it provides the tools for understanding reality, knowledge, and morality. It is a method of inquiry, a commitment to reason and first principles that allows one to derive conclusions logically. An ideology, in contrast, is often a pre-packaged set of conclusions and political tenets. It tells you *what* to think, not *how* to think. While not inherently negative, ideologies can become rigid dogmas, adopted without the rigorous intellectual work required to build a true philosophical foundation.
Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist and philosopher who created the influential philosophical system known as Objectivism. Through her celebrated novels, most notably *The Fountainhead* and *Atlas Shrugged*, she championed reason as man’s only absolute, rational self-interest as a moral virtue, and laissez-faire (free market, decentralized) capitalism as the only social system that fully protects individual rights.
Objectivism is Ayn Rand’s comprehensive philosophy, which holds that reality exists as an objective absolute and that reason is man’s only means of perceiving it and his only guide to action. Its central tenets advocate for rational self-interest as the highest moral purpose, individual rights as absolute, and laissez-faire (free market, decentralized) capitalism as the only moral political-economic system.
The 20th century saw a powerful philosophical voice emerge that provided a modern moral defense for the principles underlying classical liberalism and profoundly informed modern libertarianism: Ayn Rand. Through her philosophy of Objectivism, Rand argued that individual rights are not a gift from God or society, but a requirement of human survival based in reason. Her advocacy for “rational self-interest” or “virtuous selfishness” provided a stark and necessary moral justification for capitalism and individualism, rejecting the altruistic premise that the individual must live for others. Her work gave many the philosophical armor to defend liberty not just as practical, but as fundamentally moral.
When placed against the contemporary American political spectrum, classical liberalism fits neatly into neither camp. The modern Democratic party, with its emphasis on collective rights, social safety nets, and extensive economic regulation, stands in direct opposition to the classical liberal’s commitment to individual sovereignty and limited government. The Republican party, while often paying lip service to free markets, frequently subordinates individual liberty to social conservatism, nationalism, or religious doctrine. A classical liberal is consistently pro-liberty, advocating for both economic freedom and personal freedom, a position of “fiscally conservative, socially tolerant” that finds little welcome in either major party.
The most glaring contrast, however, is with the philosophy that stole its name: modern liberalism. The classical liberal defines liberty as freedom from coercion, primarily from the government. The modern liberal, emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, redefined liberty as freedom from want, which paradoxically requires a massive expansion of government power to provide for citizens. This inverted the very purpose of government from a protector of rights to a provider of resources, fundamentally altering the relationship between the individual and the state. This is why classical liberalism is considered right-leaning today, while modern liberalism is the bedrock of the political left.
This shift is deeply connected to the broader philosophical movement of Modernism, which often entailed a rejection of Enlightenment values. Where the Enlightenment championed reason, objectivity, and universal human rights, many strains of modernist and postmodernist thought elevated subjective experience, group identity, and cultural relativism. Modern liberalism absorbed these influences, shifting its focus from the sovereign, rational individual to the individual as a member of a collective group (economic, racial, or otherwise). The goal was no longer to protect individual rights but to manage group outcomes, a project that necessitates an ever-more powerful and intrusive state.
Statism is a political system or belief that concentrates extensive power in the state, advocating for significant centralized government control over economic and social affairs at the expense of individual liberty. Statism has a religious fervor and quality to it, where the state becomes the dominant religion.
Ultimately, classical liberalism remains what it has always been: a philosophy for living a free and purposeful life. It is not a reactive ideology or a collection of disconnected political positions. It is a consistent and integrated worldview that places reason and the sanctity of the individual at its core. It demands the development of a self that is autonomous, responsible, and unwilling to sacrifice its judgment or its rights for the approval of others or the demands of the collective. In an age of increasing polarization and statism, this old philosophy of freedom offers a timeless and desperately needed path forward.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1qmevs7evjxx2f3asapytt8jv8vt0et5q0tkct32
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
