Tequila wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
He's a libertarian. I suppose he might be called a classical liberal as well, but that concept is so far divorced from modern social liberalism and even neoliberalism that calling him a liberal is ridiculous.
I'm a classical liberal. I do still very much classify myself as being a liberal.
The problem is that the term 'liberal' has been hijacked by social democrats/social liberals, rather than the classical liberals/libertarians it was originally meant to represent.
The problem, of course, is that ruveyn has various illiberal viewpoints (one of the most egregious being that it makes sense to deploy massive amounts of nukes instead of conventional ground troops as well as various Roman-esque authoritarian ideas about how to run administrations).
Regardless, libertarians often overestimate their supposedly synonymous status with "classical liberals", as quite a few enlightenment liberals did express proto-Rooseveltian/Rawlsian ideals. A very far cry from the bastardly extremism and naivete of capitalist libertarians today.