Thought

Liberty and Its Enemies: A Conservative Critique of Three Modern Ideologies

What we share today, we inherit tomorrow.👇🏼

Introduction: The Fall of Liberty in Language

Contemporary political discourse is a battlefield of semantics, and liberalism may well be the first concept to fall. Under the banner of “liberty,” we have witnessed the expansion of government power, the censorship of speech, and an entire framework designed to reshape societal structures and cultural traditions. People believe they are still defending liberty, unaware that they have already sided with its enemies.

This is not merely a shift in values but a triangulated deception of language and thought:

  • Libertarianism: Uses conservative language to pursue a progressive utopian vision.
  • Progressive Liberalism: Abandons liberty while monopolizing its language to enforce moral and power monopolies.
  • Neoliberalism: Technocratizes liberty, masking cultural nihilism with market rationality.

In this chaotic battle of discourse and practice, only by clarifying the true nature of these three forces and returning to the essential unity of classical liberalism and conservatism can we find the true starting point of liberty and order.

I. Libertarianism: Progressive Ideals in Conservative Language

Libertarianism is often seen as the “far-right” of the conservative camp. It opposes taxation, condemns welfare systems, and advocates for minimal or even zero government, with all public institutions privatized and contractualized. These positions, linguistically similar to conservatism, emphasize free markets, personal responsibility, and opposition to government expansion. However, philosophically, it is not conservative but rather a radical form of progressive ideology.

Liberty as an Absolute Value: A Product of Progressivism

In the logic of libertarianism, “liberty” is no longer a means or condition but the sole end. Unlike conservatism, it does not believe liberty must be constrained by moral order, historical tradition, or social responsibility. Instead, it holds that individuals can detach from all collective, religious, and cultural contexts to self-determine, self-regulate, and self-actualize. This is the ultimate form of Enlightenment rationalism.

  • Conservatism views the family as a societal unit, whereas libertarianism sees it as a “disposable private option.”
  • Conservatism believes religion provides the foundation for public morality, while libertarianism thinks morality can be entirely a personal choice.
  • Conservatism advocates for cultural continuity, whereas libertarianism considers culture merely an individual preference that does not require public maintenance.

This stance is actually very similar to left-wing progressivism—both deny tradition, authority, and the legitimacy of culture as a public asset. The difference lies only in the means: libertarians use the market, while progressives use the state.

The Hidden Utopia: The Myth of a Stateless Society

More importantly, libertarians’ understanding of the state is essentially a utopian escape: they believe that once taxes and regulations are abolished and education, police, and monetary systems are eliminated, the market will automatically generate order. This is a progressive fantasy that is overly optimistic about human nature, akin to the communist “stateless society.”

From “everyone can be their own master” to “the market can replace all institutions,” libertarianism is as thorough in its logic as Marxism—just with opposite methods: one believes in the utopianism of nationalization, the other in the utopianism of privatization.

Libertarianism is not true conservatism but a radical progressivism cloaked in conservative language.

II. Progressive Liberalism: Abandoning Liberty While Occupying Its Language

“Progressive liberalism” is the political stance with the most discursive advantage in contemporary contexts. It advocates for inclusion, diversity, equality, and justice, positioning itself as a defender of liberty and often identifying as “liberal.” However, this form of liberalism has almost no continuity with classical liberalism. Its control over speech, intervention in society, and hostility towards tradition have, in essence, already betrayed the core spirit of liberty.

The Inversion and Reconstruction of Free Speech

Progressive liberals, on one hand, raise the banners of “anti-oppression” and “anti-discrimination,” but on the other hand, weaponize these concepts to establish a system of censorship:

  • Hate speech becomes a legitimate reason for speech censorship;
  • Microaggressions turn unconscious expressions into targets for attack;
  • Safe spaces are actually zones of ideological isolation;
  • Deplatforming uses moral justification to erase dissenters from social existence.

These languages and systems are typical of “taking away liberty in the name of liberty”: using the language of justice to justify the exercise of power.

From Equal Rights to Equality of Outcome

Classical liberalism advocates for equality of opportunity and individual rights under the law, whereas progressive liberals further demand equality of outcome and structural redress:

  • Redistributing social resources through quota systems, racial preferences, and gender ratios;
  • Criticism of “privilege” is no longer based on legal injustice but on cultural or historical “original sin”;
  • Inequality is no longer seen as a result of individual differences but is labeled as “systemic oppression.”

This mindset is diametrically opposed to traditional liberalism; it does not limit power but advocates for a new power system based on moral superiority: where the oppressed dictate the narrative of justice, and the government arbitrates cultural truth.

Moral Engineering and Cultural Revolution

The ultimate goal of progressive liberals is not just to reshape institutions and resource distribution but to reshape the human heart. They are not satisfied with letting people “freely choose what is right” but demand that people must become the right kind of person. This means:

  • Family concepts, gender concepts, historical views, and language structures must all undergo “re-education”;
  • Media, schools, and businesses must practice DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) standards;
  • Non-compliers are seen as “outdated,” “toxic,” and “must be eliminated.”

This cultural panopticon is the true power play, albeit disguised in the garb of “progress” and “liberty.”

III. Neoliberalism: The Global Utopia Under the Myth of Market Rationality

Like progressive liberalism, neoliberalism also flies the flag of liberty in language but in practice pushes a set of abstract, radical, and socially restructuring plans that ignore reality. The difference is that progressive liberalism uses culture and morality as tools, while neoliberalism worships market and technological rationality.

Market Omnipotence: From Governance to Avoiding Responsibility

The core tenet of neoliberalism can be summed up in one sentence: The market is smarter than the government; let the market fix social problems. This belief, based on Adam Smith’s classical market view of the “invisible hand,” has been extremized and ideologized:

  • State-owned enterprises? Should be privatized;
  • Public healthcare? Should be commodified;
  • Educational equity? Let market competition solve it;
  • Wealth gap? No intervention needed; the market will self-regulate.

In this logic, the state is no longer the guardian of culture or the representative of public interest but a “redundant interference”; politics is no longer the manifestation of public morality but is reduced to an “efficiency issue.”

Global Template: Social Experiments Ignoring History and Culture

Neoliberalism not only promotes liberalization domestically but also forces its policy templates globally through international organizations (such as the IMF and the World Bank), implementing:

  • Financial liberalization;
  • Abolition of tariffs;
  • Budget austerity;
  • Structural reforms (i.e., cutting social spending).

This system, known as the “Washington Consensus,” is a form of institutional colonialism—disregarding each country’s economic stage and cultural background, it applies a standardized template worldwide, leading to economic collapse, social fragmentation, and loss of sovereignty in many countries.

Yet, neoliberals still firmly believe that more freedom will make everything better. This is the classic logic of utopia: the flaw is not in the ideology but in its incomplete implementation.

“Consumer Worldview”: The Depoliticized Human Ideal

In the neoliberal imagination, human society is no longer a group with religious, cultural, or national identities but a collection of individuals calculating benefits and making rational choices:

  • Education becomes a certification market;
  • Marriage becomes a contract;
  • Cities become real estate;
  • Media becomes traffic and click rates.

This seemingly neutral efficiency society is actually a void of culture and politics. It dissolves community, responsibility, and honor, leaving only price mechanisms and consumer preferences—a technocratic utopia devoid of civilization.

IV. Returning to Orthodoxy: The Essential Unity of Classical Liberalism and Conservatism

After critiquing these three pseudo-liberalisms, we need to re-understand what true liberalism is. A key insight is: Classical liberalism and conservatism are not opposing ideologies but two linguistic expressions of the same civilizational consciousness.

Common Foundation of Human Nature

Classical liberalism and conservatism are both founded on a realistic understanding of human nature:

Human nature is limited and complex: Whether it’s Locke’s “government must be constrained” or Burke’s “man is easily driven by passion,” both acknowledge that human nature contains both rationality and irrationality.

Need for institutional constraints: Classical liberalism emphasizes constitutionalism and the rule of law, while conservatism emphasizes tradition and customs, both believing that individuals need external normative frameworks.

Importance of virtue and character: Adam Smith’s “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “The Wealth of Nations” are unified; the market economy needs a moral foundation. Conservatism similarly emphasizes character education and moral cultivation.

Common Understanding of Order

Both believe that true liberty is not disorder but liberty within a just order:

Coexistence of authority and liberty: Locke acknowledges the authority of parents over children and the authority of government within its legitimate scope; conservatism acknowledges the authority of tradition, religion, and family. Neither believes that authority and liberty are inherently opposed.

Gradualism over radicalism: Classical liberalism emphasizes reform through constitutional processes, while conservatism emphasizes gradual change. Both oppose radical social transformation.

Local autonomy and multiple centers: Tocqueville praised American local autonomy, and Burke defended Irish autonomy. Both opposed centralization and supported a pluralistic power structure.

Differences in Linguistic Strategies and Substantive Unity

Their differences lie mainly in linguistic strategies, not substantive content:

Conservative language: Directly cites tradition, customs, religion, and historical experience as evidence.

Classical liberal language: Uses Enlightenment vocabulary such as reason, natural rights, and social contract for argumentation.

But the substantive content they aim to protect is the same:

  • Property rights: Both a natural right (Locke) and the foundation of civilization (conservatism);
  • The family: Both the basic unit of social contract and the vehicle of cultural transmission;
  • Religious freedom: Both a personal right and the source of social morality;
  • Rule of law: Both a rational order and the crystallization of historical wisdom.

Historical Examples of Unity

Great thinkers in history often embodied both traditions:

Locke’s unity: He emphasized both reason and natural rights and insisted on the importance of religious belief, arguing that atheists were unworthy of tolerance.

Tocqueville’s unity: He admired American democracy and stressed the role of religion, family, and local communities in supporting democracy.

Adam Smith’s unity: He was both a theorist of the free market and a moral philosopher, believing that the market economy needed a foundation of moral sentiments.

Burke’s unity: He defended the liberty of American colonies and criticized the radicalism of the French Revolution, demonstrating a balance between liberty and order.

Common Enemies

Classical liberalism and conservatism share common enemies:

  • Despotic centralization: Whether monarchical or democratic despotism, both threaten individual liberty and social pluralism;
  • Utopianism: Whether a rationally designed perfect society or radical social transformation, both ignore the complexity of human nature and the lessons of history;
  • Rational arrogance: Overconfidence in reason’s ability to solve all problems, ignoring the value of traditional wisdom and experiential knowledge.

Why Is This Unity Particularly Important Today?

Facing the challenges posed by the three pseudo-liberalisms of our time, classical liberalism and conservatism need to reunite:

  • Against the extreme individualism of libertarianism: Reaffirm that liberty requires responsibility, order, and cultural support;
  • Against the cultural hegemony of progressive liberalism: Uphold true tolerance and pluralism, rejecting ideological censorship;
  • Against the technological nihilism of neoliberalism: Emphasize the irreplaceability of politics, culture, and community.

True liberalism has never been radical but conservative; not destructive but constructive; not abstract but concrete, historical, and cultural.

Conclusion: Rebuilding a Civilization of Order and Responsibility

The concept of liberty today has been hollowed out, its syntax inverted, and its meaning swapped by various ideologies. We hear the word “liberty” everywhere, yet we see less and less of true liberty. The three ideologies that use the name of liberty—libertarianism, progressive liberalism, and neoliberalism—collectively constitute a modern “linguistic deception,” causing individuals to lose their way in the labyrinth of rights and choices and leading society toward disintegration on the path of disorder and disintegration of community.

But we should be alert: Liberty has never been just a slogan, an opportunity, or a market behavior; it is a civilizational achievement forged through history, institutions, and moral constraints.

The Flesh and Soul of Liberty

Let’s revisit a more intuitive yet profound example—the movie “Braveheart.” This film does not use any modern progressive language or terms like “equality,” “inclusion,” or “liberation.” It tells the story of a Scottish warrior rising against tyranny, a soul willing to sacrifice everything for liberty. The liberty depicted in the film is not merely the right to be free from external constraints but a life choice made within a context of honor, responsibility, sacrifice, and community.

When Mel Gibson shouts “Freedom!” the audience does not feel a list of rights or market contracts but a way of existence rooted in lineage, land, history, and sacred order. This is not the language of liberty used by progressives but the ethical depth and tragic sense of liberty before liberalism and conservatism split.

Such liberty:

  • Is not against order but liberty within order;
  • Is not abstract or technical but liberty of flesh and responsibility;
  • Is not a dehistoricized, flat language but a profound choice rooted in cultural traditions and the complexity of human nature.

True Liberalism: The Political and Ethical Foundation of Liberty

Before the corruption of semantics, classical liberalism was an ally of conservatism, not an opponent. The liberty described by Locke, Burke, Tocqueville, and others was not an isolated individual claim but a liberty built upon natural law, religious faith, local autonomy, family institutions, and moral responsibility. They did not believe that “man is an atomized existence” but that man is a political animal who lives in communities, matures in customs, and gains dignity through responsibility.

“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

— Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume I, Part II, Chapter IX.

This kind of liberty has never been a tool for “escaping constraints” but the ability to choose dignity and action within constraints. It is this liberty that enables a person to sacrifice for justice, persist for truth, and remain steadfast for faith. This liberty is not the superficial “right to choose” of today but a depth of life and virtue.

Why Reclaim the Language of Liberty?

Because once language is seized, values cannot be transmitted, misunderstandings become common sense, and hollow words become tools of ideology. Progressives and market fundamentalists understand this; they continuously shape the language of liberty to serve rights, identities, data, and choices.

What we need is to restore the ethical context and cultural texture of liberty, making it once again the core concept jointly guarded by conservatism and classical liberalism. Liberty cannot merely be a “state of absence”; it must be a form of virtue that can be realized within an affirmative order.

What we need to reclaim is not just the word itself but the respect for humanity, humility towards history, recognition of responsibility, and adherence to honor behind it.

As Burke repeatedly emphasized in “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” liberty without order and justice is not true liberty but will lead to the most terrible disasters.

He warned:

“What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils.”

In this chaos of language and thought, the task of conservatism and classical liberalism is not to retreat into the ruins of tradition in lament but to bravely reclaim the language of liberty, liberating it from extreme individualism and technical rationality, and reinfusing it with moral and humanistic substance. Only then can we rebuild a civilization that has both liberty and order, both rights and responsibilities, both reason and wisdom.

About The Author

What we share today, we inherit tomorrow.👇🏼