Let’s Talk About the Great Lie….Liberalism = Leftists

stock here: stew on this

can you describe how the big lie of leftist = liberal is a horrible insult to classical liberals which are almost the polar opposite of authoritarian leftists

Much of this is “guided AI” I did not quite end with what I wanted but here it is, in 45 minutes.
ChatGPT said:

The idea that “leftist” equals “liberal” is a profound misconception—and for classical liberals, it’s often an infuriatingly misleading conflation. Classical liberalism took root as humanity emerged from an agricultural past and entered a scientific, industrial age where knowledge, art, and music began reaching people far beyond the elites. Freed from the restrictions of feudal systems and the ironclad authority of kings and queens, classical liberalism became a philosophy of personal empowerment. Art, literature, and history moved out of private halls and into public spaces, so that the common person could experience beauty and truth as much as the wealthy could. This was the cultural spirit of liberalism: an expansion of freedom that was both intellectual and deeply personal.

At its core, classical liberalism advocates for individual rights, personal freedom, limited government, and economic liberty. It prizes free speech, open markets, and minimal interference in people’s lives by the state, allowing individuals to create, explore, and connect. In this sense, classical liberals resonate with a profound belief in humanity’s potential to improve not through forced equality, but through a freedom that encourages personal responsibility, growth, and mutual respect. This approach mirrors the curiosity and depth found in Jungian psychology, which respects the complexity of the psyche and sees each person as a unique tapestry of experiences, values, and spiritual questions.

In contrast, modern leftism, especially on its authoritarian side, often prioritizes centralized control and heavy intervention in both economic and social spheres, sometimes going as far as to restrict speech in the name of equity. This perspective, grounded in collectivism, places the needs of the group or state above the rights of the individual. To a classical liberal, these goals contradict their core principles, which prize personal liberty and free expression over enforced conformity. The authoritarian side of leftism can feel stifling, viewing individuals as parts of a social agenda rather than as unique beings whose freedoms are worth preserving.

For classical liberals, being lumped together with authoritarian leftists is more than just a mislabeling—it’s a “big lie” that fundamentally erases their worldview, reducing their belief in a society based on freedom, curiosity, and self-respect to a caricature of state control. This conflation disregards the long-standing values of classical liberalism, which cherishes the freedom of individuals to explore, create, and contribute to society on their terms.

In this light, conflating “liberal” with “leftist” overlooks the true richness of classical liberalism. This philosophy embraces a world where knowledge and beauty are accessible to all, not to mandate conformity, but to celebrate diversity of thought and experience. Take the art museum: it’s more than a place to view paintings; it symbolizes the classical liberal dream that beauty, history, and culture should belong to everyone, not just to elites or academics. Museums and libraries are civic spaces where the spirit of free inquiry and appreciation for the human condition thrive—a freedom classical liberals believe should never be regulated or rationed.

This respect for the individual’s journey resonates with thinkers like Tesla, who saw the universe not as a static entity but as a symphony of frequencies and vibrations. Tesla’s vision suggests that each person, like each frequency, holds a distinct part of the whole, contributing something unique to the broader experience. This perspective stands in sharp contrast to Freud’s deterministic worldview, which reduces human nature to a fixation on sexuality. Freud’s focus on sex as the primary driver of all behavior felt reductive to many, imposing a narrow and somewhat cynical lens on the vast complexity of human life. Classical liberals would likely see Freud’s approach as stifling, almost as a pseudo-scientific attempt to strip people of their depth and potential.

Jung, on the other hand, viewed psychology as a journey into the soul, where the conscious and subconscious, the rational and the spiritual, all play vital roles. His approach aligns with classical liberalism’s reverence for individuality and introspection, its belief that people can find meaning and fulfillment in ways that defy narrow scientific categories or social agendas. For classical liberals, this focus on the spiritual and psychological depths of a person mirrors their vision of a free society: one in which individuals are valued not as tools for a state or agenda, but as unique beings whose experiences, aspirations, and choices contribute to the richness of a shared world.

So, classical liberalism is more than a political stance; it’s a cultural and spiritual embrace of life in all its complexity. It’s a vision that sees human beings as more than mere social functions or subjects of scientific reductionism. Classical liberals believe in the beauty of freedom itself, where art, history, and individual inquiry illuminate a path toward human fulfillment—a path that no authoritarian system, left or right, could ever replicate.