[Balero]

OP was referencing Liberalism as a political movement in the UK[1]. This grew as a left of centre party in opposition to the right-of-centre Tories and was formed with the idea of changing traditional values and practices (such as limiting the power of the monarch).

"Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights". There beliefs in no way had a problem with public healthcare, but would have issues with curtailing free speech, or a curtailing of free enterprise. Today I think a classic liberal would be in the centre of the political spectrum.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[ringbugger]

So liberals are basically libertarians. But smart.

[tormeh]

It's complicated:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[ringbugger]

Libertarianism seems to lack some of the contradictions that liberlism seems to suffer from (freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves)

Still, since Liberalism tries to find a balance in its inherent values, Libertarianism seems to be dogmatic without any further depth. Dreamy technocrats or wishful anarchists, who would get angry if labeled as such.

The US is indeed different here, but I would stand to my opinion, that Liberals generally have far more thought-provoking arguments.

[erikb]

> freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves

depends strongly on the POV I'd argue. I think I know what you mean: If you don't enforce equality by taking away freedoms naturally an inequality will emerge.

One could also argue that this desired freedom doesn't exist, because the moment you have that imbalance you automatically have a large group of people who suffer less freedom due to less wealth/power.

One might even argue that limitations can create freedoms. Because murder is usually a crime that is punishable by law, it is much easier to create non-violent business in modern, western countries. Few people would say that they are less free because murder is taken out of most people's equation.

[Balero]

"(freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves) "

I don't think that freedom and equality of opportunity exclude each other any more than freedom excludes itself. Frankly I would go one further and say that equality of opportunity is freedom, and that rules impinging on equality of opportunity is impinging on freedoms as well.

It is not a contradiction that freedom can exclude freedom. My freedom to own land excludes your freedom to do what you want with it, etc.

[ringbugger]

Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in favor of freedom.

> equality of opportunity is freedom

Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you.

> My freedom to own land excludes your freedom [...]

This is an example of freedom colliding with itself, but arguing this case is much easier, since both get exactly the same rights and therefore an equal amount of freedom that cannot be maximized any further. It is a lot harder to to balance freedom and equality.

Granted, there are a lot of cases where increased equality increases freedom. This is why I think that liberals are generally smarter.

[Balero]

"Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in favor of freedom."

I see the other 'popular' equality, equality of outcome, as, in it's most extreme form, a complete totalitarian nightmare, that doesn't hold freedom back, but completely annihilates it.

"Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you."

Why would this inevitably lead to you having an opportunity taken from you, rather than working to extend this to others. This is much more realistic as to how the world works. I don't have my opportunity to work taken from me because someone is unemployed, instead they are helped to get opportunities to work (help with education or transport etc).

I think the important step is to say, that we can't have unlimited freedom (or opportunities) for everyone in society, but that trying to reach as much as possible is a worthwhile cause. And that, of course, the devil is in the details.