Classical liberalism: Difference between revisions

'''Classical liberalism''' is a [[political tradition]] and a [[History of liberalism|branch]] of [[liberalism]] that advocates [[free market]] and ''[[laissez-faire]]'' economics and [[civil liberties]] under the [[rule of law]], with special emphasis on individual autonomy, [[limited government]], [[economic freedom]], [[political freedom]] and [[freedom of speech]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Classical liberalism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/classical-liberalism |website=www.britannica.com |publisher=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=17 October 2023 |date=6 September 2023}}</ref> Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like [[social liberalism]], looks more negatively on [[Social policy|social policies]], [[tax]]ation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates [[deregulation]].<ref>M. O. Dickerson et al., ''An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach'' (2009) p. 129</ref>

Classical liberalism gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas dating at least as far back as the 16th century, within the Iberian, French, British, and Central European contexts, and it was foundational to the [[American Revolution]] and "American Project" more broadly.<ref>{{cite book |last=Douma |first=Michael |title=What is Classical Liberal History? |date=2018 |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-1-4985-3610-3}}</ref>{{sfn|Dickerson|Flanagan|O'Neill|p=129}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Renshaw |first=Catherine |date=2014-03-18 |title=What is a 'classical liberal' approach to human rights? |url=http://theconversation.com/what-is-a-classical-liberal-approach-to-human-rights-24452 |access-date=2022-08-12 |website=The Conversation}}</ref> Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include [[John Locke]],<ref name="Steven M. Dworetz 1994">Steven M. Dworetz (1994). ''The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution''.</ref> [[François Quesnay]], [[Jean-Baptiste Say]], [[Montesquieu]], [[Voltaire]], [[Marquis de Condorcet]], [[Thomas Paine]], [[Thomas Malthus]], and [[David Ricardo]]. It drew on [[classical economics]], especially the economic ideas espoused by [[Adam Smith]] in Book One of ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', and on a belief in [[natural law]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Appleby |first=Joyce |author-link=Joyce Appleby |title=Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=83HlqTJjLcgC&pg=PA58 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |date=1992 |page=58 |isbn=978-0674530133}}</ref> In contemporary times, [[Murray Rothbard]], [[Friedrich Hayek]], [[Milton Friedman]], [[Ludwig von Mises]], [[Thomas Sowell]], [[Walter E. Williams]], [[George Stigler]], [[Larry Arnhart]], [[Ronald Coase]] and [[James M. Buchanan]] are seen as the most prominent advocates of classical liberalism.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dilley |first=Stephen C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAIQOVWz2hEC |title=Darwinian Evolution and Classical Liberalism: Theories in Tension |date=2013-05-02 |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-0-7391-8107-2 |pages=13–14}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Peters |first=Michael A. |date=2022-04-16 |title=Hayek as classical liberal public intellectual: Neoliberalism, the privatization of public discourse and the future of democracy |journal=Educational Philosophy and Theory |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=443–449 |doi=10.1080/00131857.2019.1696303 |s2cid=213420239 |issn=0013-1857|doi-access=free}}</ref> However, other scholars have made reference to these contemporary thoughts as ''[[neoclassical liberalism]]'', distinguishing them from 18th-century classical liberalism.<ref name="Mayne 1999 p. 124">Mayne, Alan James (1999). ''From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigmss''. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 124–125. {{ISBN|0275961516}}.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ishiyama |first1=John T. |title=21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook |last2=Breuning |first2=Marijke |collaboration=Ellen Grigsby |publisher=SAGE Publications, Inc. |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-4129 6901-7 |pages=596–603 |chapter=Neoclassical liberals}}</ref>

In its defense of economic liberties, classical liberalism may be described as conservative or [[Right-wing politics|right wing]],<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |title=The Desk Encyclopedia of World History |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7394-7809-7 |editor-last=Wright |editor-first=Edmund |location=New York |pages=370}}</ref><ref name=":2" /> while in its defense of civil liberties, it has more in common with modern liberalism ([[Left-wing politics|the left]]). Despite this, classical liberals tend to reject [[Conservatism in the United States|the right]]'s higher tolerance for [[protectionism|economic protectionism]] and the left's inclination for collective [[Individual and group rights|group rights]] due to classical liberalism's central principle of [[individualism]].<ref name=":2">{{cite web |last1=Goodman |first1=John C. |title=Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism |url=https://www.goodmaninstitute.org/about/how-we-think/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalism-and-modern-conservatism/ |website=Goodman Institute |access-date=2 January 2022}}</ref> Additionally, in the United States, classical liberalism is considered closely tied to, or synonymous with, [[Libertarianism in the United States|American libertarianism]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-04-06 |title=Libertarianism vs. Classical Liberalism: Is there a Difference? |url=https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/06/libertarianism-vs-classical-liberalism-is-there-a-difference/ |access-date=2023-09-22 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Klein |first=Daniel B. |date=2017-05-03 |title=Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism: A Short Introduction {{!}} Daniel B. Klein |url=https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-and-classical-liberalism-a-short-introduction/ |access-date=2022-03-08 |website=fee.org |language=en}}</ref>

Classical liberals agreed with [[Thomas Hobbes]] that individuals created government to protect themselves from each other and to minimize conflict between individuals that would otherwise arise in a [[state of nature]]. These beliefs were complemented by a belief that financial incentive could best motivate labourers. This belief led to the passage of the [[Poor Law Amendment Act 1834]], which limited the provision of social assistance, based on the idea that [[Market (economics)|markets]] are the mechanism that most efficiently leads to wealth.

Core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include [[democracy]] nor government by a majority vote by citizens because "there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ellerman |first1=David |title=Does classical liberalism imply democracy? |journal=Ethics & Global Politics |date=2015 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=29310 |doi=10.3402/egp.v8.29310 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="RyanA_1995">Ryan, A. (1995): "Liberalism", In: Goodin, R. E. and Pettit, P., eds.: ''A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy'', Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, p. 293.</ref> For example, [[James Madison]] argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a [[pure democracy]], reasoning that in a pure democracy a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole ... and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party".<ref>James Madison, [[Federalist No. 10]] (22 November 1787), in Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, ''The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States'', ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (New York, 1888), [https://books.google.com/books?id=XcllKruLvi4C&q=%22common+passion+or+interest%22&pg=PA56 p. 56].</ref>

Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition since he saw the Frenchmen [[Montesquieu]], [[Benjamin Constant]], [[Joseph De Maistre]] and [[Alexis de Tocqueville]] as belonging to the British tradition and the British [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Joseph Priestley]], [[Richard Price]], [[Edward Gibbon]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[Thomas Paine]] as belonging to the French tradition.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite book|first=F. A.|last=Hayek|title=The Constitution of Liberty|location=London|publisher=Routledge|date=1976|pages=55–56|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0otEBAAAQBAJ&q=The+Constitution+of+Liberty|isbn=978-1317857808}}</ref><ref>F. A. Hayek, "Individualism: True and False", in ''Individualism and Economic Order'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), pp. 1–32.</ref> Hayek also rejected the label ''[[laissez-faire]]'' as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume and Smith.

From the 1790s to the 1820s, British radicals concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasising natural rights and popular sovereignty. [[Richard Price]] and [[Joseph Priestley]] adapted the language of Locke to the ideology of radicalism.{{sfn|Vincent|pp=28–29}} The radicals saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of [[English Dissenters|Protestant Dissenters]], the slave trade, high prices, and high taxes.<ref>{{cite book|first=Michael J.|last=Turner|year=1999|title=British Politics in an Age of Reform|location=Manchester|publisher=Manchester University Press|isbn=978-0719051869|page=86}}</ref> There was greater unity among classical liberals than there had been among Whigs. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty, and equal rights, as well as some other important tenants of [[Left-wing politics|leftism]], since classical liberalism was introduced in the late 18th century as a leftist movement.<ref name=":1" /> They believed these goals required a free economy with minimal government interference. Some elements of Whiggery were uncomfortable with the commercial nature of classical liberalism. These elements became associated with conservatism.{{sfn|Vincent|pp=29–30}}

The [[Ottoman Empire]] had [[Economic liberalism|liberal]] free trade policies by the 18th century, with origins in [[capitulations of the Ottoman Empire]], dating back to the first commercial treaties signed with France in 1536 and taken further with [[Capitulation (treaty)|capitulations]] in 1673, in 1740 which lowered [[Duty (economics)|duties]] to only 3% for imports and exports and in 1790. Ottoman free trade policies were praised by British economists advocating free trade such as [[J. R. McCulloch]] in his ''Dictionary of Commerce'' (1834) but criticized by British politicians opposing free trade such as [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[Benjamin Disraeli]], who cited the Ottoman Empire as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 [[Corn Laws]] debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufactures of the world" in 1812.<ref>{{cite book |author=Paul Bairoch |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/193124153/Economics-and-World-History-Myths-and-Paradoxes-Paul-Bairoch |title=Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |year=1995 |pages=31–32 |author-link=Paul Bairoch |access-date=2017-08-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171012060209/https://www.scribd.com/document/193124153/Economics-and-World-History-Myths-and-Paradoxes-Paul-Bairoch |archive-date=2017-10-12 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary or feudal interests such as the nobility; the aristocracy, including army officers; the landed gentry; and the established church.<ref>{{cite book|first=Louis|last=Hartz|title=The Liberal Tradition in America|date=1955|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e1bQY1CDx2IC&pg=PA3|chapter=The Concept of a Liberal Society|isbn=978-0156512695|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|url=https://archive.org/details/liberaltradition00hart_0}}</ref> [[Thomas Jefferson]] adopted many of the ideals of liberalism, but in the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]] changed Locke's "life, liberty and property" to the more [[Social liberalism|socially liberal]] "[[Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness]]".<ref name="Steven M. Dworetz 1994" /> As the United States grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and during the term of its first [[Populism|populist]] [[President of the United States|President]], [[Andrew Jackson]], economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the [[Jacksonian democracy|Jacksonian era]] were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism.<ref>{{cite book|author=Jeremy M. Brown|title=Explaining the Reagan Years in Central America: A World System Perspective|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k9N1duU9zgMC&pg=PA25|year=1995|publisher=University Press of America|isbn=978-0819198136|page=25}}</ref> Freedom, according to classical liberals, was maximised when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward the economy.<ref>{{cite book|author=Paul Kahan|title=The Homestead Strike: Labor, Violence, and American Industry|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ctaTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28|year=2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1136173974|page=28|quote=Called the "Jacksonian Era," this era was characterized by greater voting rights for white men, a hands-off approach to economic issues, and a desire to spread U.S. culture and government west (an outlook called "[[Manifest Destiny]]").}}</ref> Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues:

<blockquote>[A]t the center of classical liberal theory [in Europe] was the idea of ''laissez-faire''. To the vast majority of American classical liberals, however, ''laissez-faire'' did not mean no government intervention at all. On the contrary, they were more than willing to see government provide tariffs, railroad subsidies, and internal improvements, all of which benefited producers. What they condemned was intervention on behalf of consumers.<ref>{{cite book|author=Kathleen G. Donohue|title=Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ud7TN4Asro8C&pg=PA2|year=2005|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|page=2|isbn=978-0801883910}}</ref></blockquote>

The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is controversial and disputed by many.<ref>{{cite book|author=D. Conway|title=Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lvLMCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26|year= 1998 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|isbn=978-0230371194|page=26}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/12/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalis|title=Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism|last1=Richman|first1=Sheldon|date=12 August 2012|work=Reason|publisher=Reason Foundation|access-date=4 November 2016|archive-date=8 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181008084836/http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/12/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalis|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://haciendapublishing.com/articles/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalism-socialism-%E2%80%94-primer|title=Classical Liberalism vs Modern Liberalism (Socialism) – A Primer|last1=Faria|first1=Miguel A. Jr.|date=21 March 2012|website=haciendapublishing.com|publisher=Hacienda Publishing|access-date=4 November 2016|archive-date=13 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190413153321/https://haciendapublishing.com/articles/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalism-socialism-%E2%80%94-primer|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Alan Ryan|title=The Making of Modern Liberalism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KfpnzJuy1XcC&pg=PA23|year= 2012|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1400841950|pages=23–26}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Andrew Heywood|title=Political Ideologies: An Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=poYdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59|year=2012|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-0230369948|page=59}}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}</ref> [[James Kurth]], [[Robert E. Lerner]], [[John Micklethwait]], [[Adrian Wooldridge]] and several other political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of [[Conservatism in the United States|American conservatism]].<ref>{{cite book|author1=Nathan Schlueter|author2=Nikolai Wenzel|title=Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives?: The Foundations of the Libertarian–Conservative Debate|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YKosDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA8|year= 2016|publisher =Stanford University Press|isbn=978-1503600294|page=8|quote=American conservatism is a form of classical liberalism.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=John Micklethwait|author2=Adrian Wooldridge|title=The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America|url=https://archive.org/details/rightnationconse00mick|url-access=registration|year=2004|publisher=Penguin|isbn=978-1594200205|page=[https://archive.org/details/rightnationconse00mick/page/343 343]|quote=Whichever way you look at it, American conservatism has embraced a great chunk of classical liberalism-so much of it that many observers have argued that American conservatism was an oxymoron; that it is basically classical liberalism in disguise.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=James R. Kirth|author-link=James Kurth|editor=Sanford V. Levinson|others=Melissa S. Williams, Joel Parker|title=American Conservatism: NOMOS LVI|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XgrMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA26|year=2016|publisher=NYU Press|isbn=978-1479865185|page=26|chapter=A History of Inherent Contradictions: The Origins and Ends of American Conservatism|quote=Of course, the original conservatives had not really been conservatives either. They were merely classical liberals. It seems to be the case in American that most so-called conservatives have really been something else. This has confused not only external observers of American conservatism (be they on the European Right or on the American Left), but it has confused American conservatives as well.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Robert Lerner|author2=Althea K. Nagai|author3=Stanley Rothman|title=American Elites|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=hvQ8D0Rp56UC&pg=PA41|year=1996|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0300065343|page=41|quote=Moreover, Americans do not use the term liberalism in the same way that Europeans do. In fact, classical European liberalism more closely resembles what we (and what Americans generally) call conservatism.}}</ref> According to [[Deepak Lal]], only in the United States does classical liberalism continue to be a significant political force through American conservatism.<ref>{{cite book|author=Deepak Lal|title=Reviving the Invisible Hand: The Case for Classical Liberalism in the Twenty-first Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qU1f2XP_NfQC&pg=PA51|year= 2010|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1400837441|page=51|quote=The major votaries of classical liberalism today are American conservatives. For as Hayek noted: "It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based. "But, contemporary American conservatism is a novel brew which Micklethwait and Wooldridge rightly note is a mixture of the individualism of classical liberalism and "ubertraditionalism." It represents adherence to the bourgeois organization of society epitomized by that much-maligned word, "Victorian": with its faith in individualism, capitalism, progress, and virtue. Having been silenced by the seemingly endless march of "embedded liberalism" since the New Deal, American conservatism has, since the late 1960s, regrouped, and under Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush created a new powerful political movement. Thus, apart from the brief period of Margaret Thatcher's ascendancy in Britain, it is only in the United States that the classical liberal tradition continues to have political force.}}</ref> [[American libertarians]] also claim to be the true continuation of the classical liberal tradition.<ref>{{cite web |last1=McMaken |first1=Ryan |title='Libertarian' Is Just Another Word for (Classical) Liberal |url=https://mises.org/wire/libertarian-just-another-word-classical-liberal |website=Mises Wire |date=12 September 2019 |publisher=Mises Institute |access-date=6 November 2020}}</ref>

[[Jean-Baptiste Say]] was a French economist who introduced Smith's economic theories into France and whose commentaries on Smith were read in both France and Britain.{{sfn|Mills|p=69}} Say challenged Smith's [[labour theory of value]], believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. His most important contribution to economic thinking was Say's law, which was interpreted by classical economists that there could be no [[overproduction]] in a market and that there would always be a balance between supply and demand.{{sfn|Mills|p=70}}<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Mark|last1=Blaug|title=Say's Law of Markets: What Did It Mean and Why Should We Care?|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40325773|journal=Eastern Economic Journal|date=1997|issn=0094-5056|pages=231–235|volume=23|issue=2|jstor=40325773}}</ref> This general belief influenced government policies until the 1930s. Following this law, since the economic cycle was seen as self-correcting, government did not intervene during periods of economic hardship because it was seen as futile.{{sfn|Mills|p=71}}

Malthus wrote two books, ''[[An Essay on the Principle of Population]]'' (published in 1798) and ''[[Principles of Political Economy (Malthus)|Principles of Political Economy]]'' (published in 1820). The second book which was a rebuttal of Say's law had little influence on contemporary economists.{{sfn|Mills|pp=71–72}} However, his first book became a major influence on classical liberalism.<ref>{{cite book|first1=Ashleigh|last1=Campi|first2=Lindsay|last2=Scorgie-Porter|title=An Analysis of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qjQuDwAAQBAJ|publisher=CRC Press|year= 2017|isbn=978-1351352581|via=Google Books}}</ref>{{sfn|Mills|p=72}} In that book, Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were in fact responsible for their own problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.{{sfn|Mills|p=72}}

Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as [[Jane Marcet]] and [[Harriet Martineau]].{{sfn|Richardson|p=33}} The strongest defender of ''laissez-faire'' was ''The Economist'' founded by [[James Wilson (UK politician)|James Wilson]] in 1843. ''The Economist'' criticised Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. ''The Economist'' took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water, and granting of patents and copyrights.{{sfn|Richardson|p=34}}

Many classical liberal theorists were skeptical of democracy, believing that poor, uneducated people were not capable of governing and they might vote against economically liberal principles.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mackert |first1=Jürgen  |title=The Condition of Democracy: Volume 3: Postcolonial and Settler Colonial Contexts |date=12 July 2021 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-40193-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o0QvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2013 |language=en |chapter=A ‘master-race democracy’: Myths and lies of Western liberal civilization|location=Liberalism as anti-democratic}}</ref> The skepticism about self-governance was even more pronounced when it came to "uncivilized", non-European societies, with many classical liberal thinkers providing intellectual justifications for [[white supremacy]], colonial rule, and the destruction of native societies via [[settler colonialism]].{{sfn|Mackert|2021|loc=Great liberal minds: the men who believed in barbarism}}

* Australia: [[Liberal Party of Australia]],<ref>{{cite book |first=Kuo-Tsai |last=Liou |title=Handbook of Economic Development |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cxxJkKYAzioC&pg=PA357 |year=1998 |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-1461671756 |page=357}}</ref> [[Libertarian Party (Australia)|Libertarian Party]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9029251/in-praise-of-the-liberal-democrats/ |title=In praise of Australia's Liberal Democrats » The Spectator}}</ref>

* Brazil: [[New Party (Brazil)|New Party]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://novo.org.br/novo/posicionamentos/|title=Posicionamentos}}{{Dead link|date=July 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

* Canada: [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]], [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]] (factions), [[Libertarian Party of Canada|Libertarian Party]], [[People's Party of Canada|People's Party]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-conservatives-people-s-1.4822178|title=Maxime Bernier's new party stakes out classical liberal values: Don Pittis|access-date=21 July 2022|archive-date=23 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220523030442/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-conservatives-people-s-1.4822178|url-status=live}}</ref>

* Chile: [[Evópoli]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.evopoli.cl/un-manifiesto-liberal/|title=Un manifiesto liberal|date=24 September 2018}}</ref>

* Denmark: {{Lang|da|[[Venstre (Denmark)|Venstre]]|italic=no}},<ref>{{cite book|editor=Thomas J. DiLorenzo |title=The Problem with Socialism |date=2016 |page=82 |publisher=Simon and Schuster}}</ref> [[Moderates (Denmark)|Moderates]], [[Liberal Alliance (Denmark)|Liberal Alliance]]<ref>{{cite book|editor=Marco Lisi |title=Party System Change, the European Crisis and the State of Democracy |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|editor=Mark Salmon, Culture Smart! |title=Denmark – Culture Smart!: The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WuiIDwAAQBAJ&dq=classical+liberal+Liberal+Alliance&pg=PT37 |quote= Liberal Alliance Formerly New Alliance, Liberal Alliance are a center right, classical liberal party formed in 2007 by former members of the Social Liberal Party and the Conservative People's Party. |date=2019 |publisher=Kuperard|isbn=978-1787029187}}</ref>

* Estonia: [[Estonian Reform Party]]<ref>{{cite book |editor=Arturo Bris |title=The Right Place: How National Competitiveness Makes or Breaks Companies |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9fMxEAAAQBAJ&dq=Iceland+classical+liberal+Reform+Party&pg=PT314 |date=2021 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-1000327793}}</ref>

* Georgia: [[Girchi — More Freedom]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aldeparty.eu/girchi_more_freedom |title=Girchi-More Freedom |publisher=aldeparty.eu }}{{Dead link|date=May 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> [[Girchi]]

* Germany: [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|Free Democratic Party]]<ref>{{cite book|editor=Brian Duignan|title=The Science and Philosophy of Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ye-cAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA121|year=2013|publisher=Britannica Educational Publishing|isbn=978-1615307487|page=121}}</ref>

* India: [[Lok Satta Party]]<ref name="ideology">{{cite web|url=http://www.loksatta.org/loksatta-government-people|title=Loksatta - Government 'by' the people|website=Loksatta Party|access-date=2016-04-11|archive-date=15 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315001151/http://www.loksatta.org/loksatta-government-people|url-status=dead}}</ref>

* India: [[Swatantra Bharat Paksh]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Why SBP – Swatantra Bharat Party |url=https://www.swatantra.org.in/why-swarna-bharat-party/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240302000051/https://www.swatantra.org.in/why-swarna-bharat-party/ |archive-date=2024-03-02 |access-date=2024-10-26 |language=en-US}}</ref>

* New Zealand: [[New Zealand National Party]],<ref>{{cite book|editor=Natacha Gagné |title=Being M?ori in the City: Indigenous Everyday Life in Auckland |date=2013 |page=3 |publisher=University of Toronto Press}}</ref> [[ACT New Zealand]]<ref>{{cite speech|title=Our classical liberal tribe|url=http://www.act.org.nz/posts/speech-our-classical-liberal-tribe|website=www.act.org.nz|publisher=ACT New Zealand|access-date=8 February 2017|date=23 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170211075239/http://www.act.org.nz/posts/speech-our-classical-liberal-tribe|archive-date=11 February 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>

* Norway: {{Lang|no|[[Liberal Party (Norway)|Venstre]]|italic=no}},<ref>{{cite book|author=Jens Rydström|title=Odd Couples: A History of Gay Marriage in Scandinavia|url=https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/34648/381654.pdf;jsessionid=DE789FAC51B1C4767310C2A1E0FFCE91?sequence=1|page=97|date=2011|publisher=aksant|isbn=9789052603810}}</ref> [[Progress Party (Norway)|Progress Party]]  

* Poland: [[Modern (political party)|Modern]],<ref>{{cite book |editor=Marek Payerhin |title=Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2016–2017 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-v_lDAAAQBAJ&dq=classical+liberal+Nowoczesna+Poland&pg=PA339 |quote= Another new movement was the Modern of Ryszard Petru, later styled as Modern (Nowoczesna) or simply ".N." This classical liberal party created by an economist, Ryszard Petru, received 7.6% of votes and 28 seats in the Sejm (it later gained an additional deputy who left Kukiz'15) |date=2016 |page=339 |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]]|isbn=978-1475828979}}</ref> [[Civic Platform]]<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S8ICDAAAQBAJ&q=%22Civic&pg=PA207|author=Alan G. Smith|title=A Comparative Introduction to Political Science: Contention and Cooperation|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|year=2016|page=207|isbn=9781442252608}}</ref>

* Portugal: [[Liberal Initiative (Portugal)|Liberal Initiative]], <ref>{{cite web |url=https://observador.pt/programas/emissao-especial/il-nao-ganhou-estas-eleicoes-mas-ganhou-o-futuro/ |title=Cotrim Figueiredo: Iniciativa Liberal "não ganhou estas eleições mas ganhou o futuro" |website=Observador.pt}}</ref> [[Social Democratic Party (Portugal)|Social Democratic Party]]  

* Slovakia: [[Freedom and Solidarity]]<ref>{{cite web|work=Online-Slovakia|title=Political parties and elections in Slovakia|accessdate=3 April 2018|url=http://www.online-slovakia.com/politics/elections.html|archive-date=6 October 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231006230227/http://www.online-slovakia.com/politics/elections.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="EFDD">{{cite web|url=http://www.efddgroup.eu/images/publications/Who_Is_Who.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328224828/http://www.efddgroup.eu/images/publications/Who_Is_Who.pdf|archivedate=28 March 2019|quote=Freedom and Solidarity (Slovak: Sloboda a Solidarita, SaS): Limited government, EU-sceptic, Euro-critical, classical-Liberal/Libertarian|title=Who is Who? On the EU-Critical Right of Centre|work=[[Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy]]|page=43|year=2018}}</ref>

* United Kingdom: [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrats]], [[Liberal Party (UK, 1989)|Liberal Party]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://liberal.org.uk/introduction-to-the-liberal-party-policies/|title=Introduction to The Liberal Party Policies|website=liberal.org.uk|access-date=12 July 2022|archive-date=24 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220524051332/https://liberal.org.uk/introduction-to-the-liberal-party-policies/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] (factions)

* United States: [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] (factions), [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] (factions), [[Liberal Party USA]], [[Libertarian Party (United States)|Libertarian Party]]

* Germany: [[German Democratic Party]]<ref>{{cite book |last=Mommsen |first=Hans |author-link=Hans Mommsen |year=1996 |title=The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/risefallweimarde00momm/page/n76 58] |isbn=0807822493 |url=https://archive.org/details/risefallweimarde00momm |url-access=limited}}</ref>

* Switzerland: [[Free Democratic Party of Switzerland]],<ref>{{cite book|author1=Jan-Erik Lane|author2=Svante O. Ersson|title=Politics and Society in Western Europe|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qw62oX96310C&pg=PA101|access-date=19 July 2013|year=1999|publisher=Sage Publications|isbn=978-0761958628|page=101}}</ref> [[Liberal Party of Switzerland]]

* {{cite encyclopedia|last=Conway|first=David|title=Liberalism, Classical |author-link=David Conway (academic)|editor-first=Ronald|editor-last=Hamowy|editor-link=Ronald Hamowy|encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC|pages=295–298|doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n179|year=2008|publisher=[[SAGE Publishing|Sage]]; [[Cato Institute]]|location=Thousand Oaks, CA|isbn=978-1412965804|oclc=750831024|lccn=2008009151|ref=CITEREFConway|access-date=27 January 2016|archive-date=9 January 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230109234738/https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}

* {{cite book|first1=M. O.|last1=Dickerson|first2=Thomas|last2=Flanagan|first3=Brenda|last3=O'Neill|title=An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach|year=2009|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-0176500429|ref=CITEREFDickersonFlanaganO'Neill|url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontogo0000dick_h1m6}}

* {{cite book|author-link=John Gray (philosopher)|first=John|last=Gray|year=1995|title=Liberalism|location=Minneapolis|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|isbn=0816628009|ref=CITEREFGray}}

* {{cite book|last=Heywood|first=Andrew|year=2004|title=Political Theory, Third Edition: An Introduction|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=0333961803}}

* {{cite book|first=E. K.|last=Hunt|year=2003|title=Property and Prophets: The Evolution of Economic Institutions and Ideologies|location=New York|publisher=M. E. Sharpe, Inc.|isbn=0765606089|ref=CITEREFHunt}}

* {{cite book|first1=John T.|last1=Ishiyama|author-link1=John Ishiyama|first2=Marijike|last2=Breuning|year=2010|title=21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook|volume=1|location=London|publisher=Sage Publications|isbn=978-1412969017|ref=CITEREFIshiyamaBreuning}}

* {{cite book|first=John|last=Mills|year=2002|title=A Critical History of Economics|location=Basingstoke, England|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=0333971302|ref=CITEREFMills}}

* {{cite book|first=James L.|last=Richardson|year=2001|title=Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power|location=Boulder, Colorado|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|isbn=155587939X|ref=CITEREFRichardson}}

* {{cite book|last=Turner|first=Rachel S.|year=2008|title=Neo-Liberal Ideology: History, Concepts and Policies: History, Concepts and Policies|location=Edinburgh|publisher=[[Edinburgh University Press]]|isbn=978-0748632350}}

* {{cite book|last=Van de Haar|first=Edwin|year=2015|title=Degrees of Freedom: Liberal Political Philosophy and Ideology|location=New Brunswick, NJ|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1412855754}}

* {{cite book|first=Andrew|last=Vincent|year=2009|title=Modern Political Ideologies|edition=Third|location=Chichester, England|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|isbn=978-1405154956|ref=CITEREFVincent}}

* {{cite book |last=Epstein |first=Richard A. |author-link=Richard A. Epstein |title=The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |location=Cambridge, MA |year=2014 |isbn=978-0674724891}}

*  {{cite book |last=Mayne |first=Alan J. |title=From politics past to politics future: an integrated analysis of current and emergent paradigms |date=1999 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |location=Westport, CT |isbn=0275961516}}