The term classical liberal is a loaded one, and I want to briefly take a look at what it means and its failure to address any societal problems and why it's not intended to fix anything. First, what is Classical Liberalism? Wikipedia's definition: "Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom." This political belief system is a repackaged conservative neoliberal utopia where you can have it both ways, dress up like a liberal but hide as a conservative/libertarian. Classical liberals focus on individual autonomy by insisting limited government is the best way for civilization to flourish (for the wealthy) and low taxes is a must. In some instances, classical liberals are fiscally further to the right than conservatives.
Simon Goldie: "The 'classical liberal' ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, and others came to dominate Western democracies but by the early 20th century, the Liberal party was moving towards a more interventionist approach, and the Labour party was beginning to become a serious political force.
Lew Rockwell believes that 'classical liberalism' failed because liberals decided that ensuring liberty was not enough: if people were free but couldn't eat then, liberals should do something about this terrible situation."
Classical liberals tend to ignore racism, sexism & poverty as matters for individuals to help if they so desire. Again, limited government spending and the taxation is theft argument. Classical liberalism is modern day libertarianism mixed with conservatism.
This group also believes in ultimate free speech with no countering their claims. What do I mean? This nonsensical political activist group says any sensor of their free speech by response stifles free speech. Unless you are a white male, you cannot respond to critiques. And if you do counter their claims, you're a snowflake a radical collectivist leftist.
Free speech is the cornerstone of three thought and entering diverse opinions into the public square. Few people that I've met want to stop free speech. As we know from-time-to-time, at some college campuses, right-wingers purposely send controversial speakers to speak and some protestors come, which is unneeded; mixed in are some RIGHT-WING protestors PAID to disrupt the protests and inflame tensions cause violence whereby giving radical classical liberals the ability to call foul on the demonstrators, most of whom have good intentions of voicing their free speech.
Free speech doesn't mean you get the last word. Nor does it mean, that right or wrong, you get to decide your opponent's position. Classical liberals hold systematic racism does not exist. It's much ado about nothing. If only radical classical liberals could call blacks niggers, they wouldn't feel so oppressed. By the way, feel free to use your speech against minorities, my guess is you won't do that unless you're surrounded by security. Not that people should put their hands on radical classical liberals, but the point is, the only time responding to you with vitriol makes sense is when they're on a stage among sycophantic worshipers. These include confused millennials searching for their place in life no doubt, but hijacked by the radical classical liberal ideology as if it were fact or even right for society.