Libertarians are true liberals

Liberalism today has come to mean social activism but this is not what the term is supposed to mean and did mean until the Progressives forever changed the term in America. Libertarians are liberals in the classical sense; that is, we are the true liberals.

Classic liberals - what "liberalism" used to mean - believe in free markets, limited government, and personal freedom. We are liberal because of this strong belief in personal freedom however we go about establishing this freedom in a different way - we don't think the government needs to mandate it. Personal freedom is implied and the government has no business meddling with it.

This is where classical liberalism strays greatly from the modern liberal "social activists." Modern liberals believe the government has to define and enforce personal freedoms for everybody. But doing this forces government involvement in everyone's lives. Doing this takes away personal freedom as it is impossible for the government to "enforce" personal freedom without infringing on the rights of individuals who may disagree with others.

So why has liberalism come to mean social activism? It happened in the late 19th century before the re-definition was complete with FDR's New Deal. The late 19th century politicians, among them Theodore Roosevelt, came to prominence with progressive ideals that were supported by voters. The government began to interfere with the economy (T.R.'s 'trust busting) and the public was happy to allow this. At the time corporate titans John D. Rockefeller, Dale Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan dominated the oil, steel, and banking industries which brought about the public sentiment to regulate business practices.

These first government interventions into wider society mark the first time the government acted as a social activist. Other laws followed such as child labor, worker safety, etc. It was during this time when social liberals split from classic liberals who thought the government shouldn't intervene with the actions of wider society because the markets should determine business practices.

Wilson solidified the acceptance of statism where before classical liberals embraced anti-statist individualism. This stance was assumed at the time by conservatives. Powerful corporations and the enhanced ability to communicate (telegraph, telephone) brought economic organization to a national level - and the "liberal" government of the time period reacted accordingly - culminating in FDR's New Deal where the government functioned as an economic planner. New Deal "economic planners" went so far as to daily dictate the price of gold and reorganize entire industries.

The failures of New Deal economic planning then led liberals to embrace Keynesian economic principles that call on the government to manage aggregate demand - still direct market involvement but not to the extent of FDR's policies.

It was also during this time that individual rights were emphasized by liberals - particularly civil rights - which led to the clashes of the 1960s. It was in the 1960s that the transformation of the liberal into a social activist became complete.

So what happened to the classic liberals? Well, by and large they didn't exist. The dual-party political system in America embraced progressive ideas on both sides and classical liberals were relegated to the sidelines. A few classic liberals popped up from time to time from the Republican Party - Barry Goldwater comes to mind - but a new brand of GOP dominated that accepted the renovations of the social activists and New Deal policies of the 1930s - the "neo-cons."

Today the Internet allows for easy transfer of ideas and people are discovering that they agree with the classic liberal policies of the Libertarian Party when they read about it. Its a completely different stance from the two-party system.