Liberals want governments and collective public elements to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals (from other individuals, organizations, and governments).

If the overarching "freedoms of individuals" is the freedom to exploit the labor of individuals then yes, that's the core of liberalism.

If by "collective public elements" you meant collectivizing the means of production, then no, that's socialism/anarchism/other.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's the core of neo liberalism. Liberalism has a "my rights end where yours begin" component but neo liberalism drops that and expects the free market to solve such conflicts.

And by "collective public elements", I meant public organizations like the postal service, police departments, etc. The government itself is supposed to be one of those. Liberalism is neutral on what is and isn't collectivized. Neo liberalism likes privatization but appreciates that some functions are better handled by the public, like law enforcement and road maintenance. Libertarianism believes it should all be private.

In the last comment I said neo liberalism and libertarianism are pretty much the same, but it's more accurate to say libertarianism is an extreme version of neo liberalism.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Liberalism has a “my rights end where yours begin”

No, it's always been the defense of exploitation when it comes into conflict with any other supposed right.

Here's one of my favorite books, it goes through the history and evolution of Liberalism: http://acdc2007.free.fr/losurdo2011.pdf

It's special because most liberal thought is taught as something that was born, fully formed, from the minds of men in the 1700s, and exists entirely divorced from context and material conditions.