Classical-Liberal

Peter Namtvedt's anti-statist market blog.
Want to comment?  

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism and laissez-faire liberalism, or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society.

The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from evolutions in liberal thought during the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and Franklin D. Roosevelt, which grants a more interventionist role for the state and establishing “positive rights” such as a right to a decent living. Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is actually closest to Libertarianism.

Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman are credited with a revival of classical liberalism in the 20th century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.

Libertarians of a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist persuasion use the term "classical liberalism" almost interchangeably with the term "libertarianism", while the correctness of this usage is disputed (see "Classical liberalism" and libertarianism, below). Nevertheless, if the two philosophies are not the same, classical liberalism does resemble modern libertarianism in many ways.

Original entry:

2007-10-12 — The Concept of Liberalism

This blogger espouses liberalism. But in 21st century America, the concept has almost been destroyed. The word liberal was stolen and perverted. It now stands for politicians being liberal with your money, for coerced equality, common ownership, favoring of the undeserving, redistribution, liberalism stands for statism and socialism. I aim to take it back. It is awkward to call this philosophy "classical liberalism." It sounds reactionary and conservative. But until those who espouse true liberalism have recaptured the word, classical liberalism must be used to distance ourselves from the corrupt American liberals.

Classical liberalism is radical. It stands for a social order that has not been fully tried, although the original conditions of the United States came close.

Definitions

(from Webster's Dictionary):

Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

Liberal: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Liberalism: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition

Ludwig von Mises said it well:

"First, I employ the term 'liberal' in the sense attached to it every-where in the nineteenth century and still today in the countries of continental Europe. This usage is imperative because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals f[rom] slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage."

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action,
Foreword to the second edition.

True liberalism is:

• A market economy
• Constitutional representative government
• Individual freedom from slavery of any kind: liberty under the the rule of law
• Respect for the rights of first possession, freedom of contract, restitution, self-defense and several property.
• Individualism, society is a derivative.
• Self-ownership. Individuals own themselves and the product of their intelligence and effort. They have ownership of what they found first, that no one else has posted a first claim to, and ownership of everything gotten by legal exchanges.
• Full right to enter into contracts or to refrain from so doing.
• Restitution rather than punishment and fines paid to the state. When someone infringes on one's liberty they should make restitution, compensating for the damage, rather than being punished.
• Having the freedom to do what one wills as long as the actions do not physically harm any other human.
• Prohibiting the initiation of force or fraud. If an opposite concept helps define liberty it is coercion. Against these threats, every person has full right of self-defense.
• The pursuit of happiness, which so many prize, is held to be impossible without several property, or dispersed rather than common property.

Natural Rights

At the heart of liberalism is the concept of natural rights. Natural rights are claims to be allowed to do what one wants with the resources one has as long as they do no physical harm to others, and these rights imply the duty of others to allow this, not to interfere. Natural rights are negative rights, they are claims to be allowed to be oneself, to tend to one's life's projects. They are not positive rights such as a right to a decent home or job.

Human beings are selves, which must be treated as ends in themselves, and never merely as means. A human being owns herself or himself. Human beings have property in themselves. And what human beings create by their minds and hands are their property also. This forms the foundation from which specific rights are derived. A specific description of the rights claimed by liberalism is discussed later.

Rights denote liberties, not license. If someone complains (facetiously or otherwise) that liberalism is self-contradictory since he is not allowed his freedom to steal or rape, he is not talking about liberalism. You are free to place your knife anywhere but not it my chest. You can swing your fists all around you, but it cannot connect with my nose.

Liberty

Liberty is usually synonymous with freedom. But liberalism prefers the word liberty, since freedom is used to denote a wider and inconsistent set of values. One can be set free from jail or a trap; one can be free of disease; free from hunger; free from one's spouse; free of debt; released from captors; something can be free of charge, unencumbered by debt, or one can feel free as a bird.

The liberty that is promoted here is not to be confused with an inner freedom (from bad judgment, or fear or worries, or freedom to have peace of mind) or with civil liberties which are political liberties (which are not inherent in human nature or required by it, but which are defined groups of people forming a government, and which make living in society convenient and workable).

Some people feel freedom means the absence of all evils and the possession of all good things. It connotes positive rights at times, such as a freedom from want, from hunger, from poverty. See F.D. Roosevelt's “Second Bill of Rights.” It connotes power to satisfy one's wishes, power over natural forces and an absence of obligations. Equal opportunity is to some not equality unless everyone has the effective power to be equally likely to get the job of their wishes, regardless of merit.

The liberty that liberalism espouses implies rights that are compossible: they are those rights and liberties that can co-exist and be possessed equally by everyone. A liberal economy does not mean an economy with no holds barred, without rules, or a laissez faire world. A truly liberal economy must be compatible with the rule of law.

The History of Liberalism

What goes by the name of liberalism has not always been a consistent, unchanging program or philosophy. People have misappropriated the name for other philosophies and political movements. Also, various extreme conditions of society have produced distortions, introducing contradictions which were aimed at correcting social ills. During times of widespread economic misfortune liberalism has sometimes brought in elements foreign to its essence, such as social welfare. Defensive wars have led liberals to comply with temporary restrictions on freedoms. Liberals who are alert when the war is over will insist on a proper but gradual return to strict respect for the original rights and liberties.

The ultimate goal of liberalism, however, stays stable, with its adherence to rationality and healthy neutrality about the evil or good in people.

See Encyclopedia dot com

Many forces of history or cultural, economic and other forces have contributed to the creation of liberalism. There were seeds of liberalism in Greek and Roman times, with their democratic and republican forms of government recognizing limited freedom of their citizens. Citizenship in those times unfortunately was not granted to women and slaves. These values saw resurgence in the Italian Renaissance, but did not become dominant in forming society in general until the Enlightenment. During that time and following it liberalism dominated in Germany, Britain, France and America. The writings of such men as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and John Locke mark the height of such thinking. John Locke wrote the foundation work, The Second Treatise on Government, thought to be the most comprehensive definition and principles of liberalism for over a century.

The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was characterized by a belief in the perfection of the natural order and a belief that natural laws should govern society. Logically it was reasoned that if the natural order is conducive to perfection, then society should operate freely without interference from government.

The classic works of liberalism include J. Locke, Second Treatise on Government (1689); J. S. Mill, On Representative Government (1862); G. L. Cheery, Early English liberalism (1962); N. P. Barry, On Classical liberalism and Libertarianism (1987).

The original meaning of the term "liberal" refers to a tradition, a political philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, which tries to circumscribe the limits of political power, and to define and support individual rights. This is often called classical liberalism and is related (though not identical) to the ideology known as libertarianism. Liberals sometimes wish to distance themselves from the word "libertarian" or from the libertarian movement or party because some who claim the "libertarian" label such as the proponents of the Chicago school of economics hold a position that the economy needs a strong government to restrain and control it.

The original Enlightenment liberals were outsiders proposing a new order, but beginning in the late 19th century, liberals began coming to power in various countries. This brings a new usage: the term "liberalism" significantly evolves from classical liberalism and has taken on different meanings in various countries. The liberalism of the liberal parties and modern liberal thinkers is what we call political liberalism: its ideological contents depend on the geographical context. 

The Name of Liberalism has been Misappropriated

Liberalism as propounded here needs to be qualified as classical liberalism. The reason for this is that the term "liberal" has essentially been stolen by a movement whose main contributors were the British Idealist T. H. Green, the New Liberal, L. T. Hobhouse, William James' pragmatism, John Dewey's anti-individualism, the Progressive movement and the New Deal proponents of welfare statism and their followers.

Stanford University.

One of the main reasons for this use of the label was the fear in the New Deal movement of being labeled socialist. They knew they needed a new label, but instead of creating one, they resorted to theft. It is not being asserted here that the New Deal proposed state ownership of the means of production or total control thereof by the state. However, there exist in the world many groups of socialists who do not maintain that ownership or control position, and have had platforms very close to that of the New Deal. They practice some state control and varying degrees of interventionism.

Both classical and modern (social democrat) liberals agree that the government has a strict duty towards impartiality and hence to treating people equally, and that it should also be neutral in its evaluation of what the good life is.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

However, only the liberals in the sense of classical liberalism hold consistently that the neutrality in evaluating of what the good life is, and that it is truly for each person to decide and to do something about. The classical liberals insist that a counting of noses as to what the good life is cannot empower government to redistribute income or wealth to satisfy a preconceived pattern.

When it comes to the economic aspects of life the typical modern "liberal" politician is usually liberal with your money. And don't count on getting your choice of benefits yourself from that money. It will instead go for whatever mix of causes the majority and lobbyists want.

The economic or financial aspect of life, they think, is only a minor and secondary part of your life. Taking your money does not interfere with your higher or spiritual life. But the economic area is in fact an integral part of your life. Everything that you want as part of the good life takes resources. Money is but a medium of exchange and the most convenient way to store the resources you have acquired, the stored reward for your cleverness and labor that you plan to use for the good life in the future. Taking your money is taking part of your life. This is not liberal, no matter how noble the cause that the money is spent on. But note that the excuse for taking your money is that it is what the poor need. The money is not supposed to be the primary thing in your life, but it is the main thing lacking in other people's lives!

There is a reason why the Lockean summary of human rights had two common expressions: 1) Life, Liberty and Property and 2) Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The meanings are identical. Pursuing happiness requires means, in which you have to have ownership. Happiness would be hard to achieve or would be rather ephemeral if you could not own things, if you could not hold and use property.

A more complete and detailed history of liberalism will have to wait for a future posting.

The Goal of this Website

The goal of this website is to continue clarifying and defending liberalism, understood in the classical sense. To accomplish this, articles will be added from time to time which contrast this with the so-called liberalism of John Dewey, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton as well as philosophers and economists of the Left.

While it is the contention of this writer that liberalism is practical, and that consequentialist grounds exist for promoting this philosophy, it needs solid grounding in an ethical philosophy which is objective and not utilitarian. It must be rooted in the reality of what it means to be human, what human life requires. As it is expounded here it will at times sound teleological or eudaemonistic. It will have an Aristotelian ring to it. And it will even draw upon the thinking of Ayn Rand.

American history and its capitalist environment will be the focus at other times, with retellings of how emergency situations were used to involve the USA in wars which were in turn used to increase the power of the federal government and to move this country ever farther from its original Liberal position. Economics will be the topic at times, which will focus attention on mostly on the ways people interact for exchanges of mutual benefit. And there will be articles about politics, where this writer would sound like a libertarian.

To Promote Liberty, We Must Listen, We Must Think, We Must Not Entertain Illusions

Many mistakes can be made while presenting liberalism to the public, and illusions can develop which will eventually weaken the case we can make for liberalism or the reception of the message. Among such mistakes and illusions are:

• to hypnotize yourself with a rosy picture – giving others the impression you're dreaming (picturing a Liberal society as one where ALL of society's problems will be solved)
• to forget that most leaders and educators in our society are antagonistic
• to place too great an emphasis on just a few facets of liberalism
• to neglect to actually ask listeners to join the cause
• to make an overly brash or “in-your-face” depiction of liberalism
• to use a tone of condemnation in describing the opposition
• to attack other Liberals or Libertarians for minor disagreements
• to assume that people always act in their own interests
• to simplistically paint all government actions as ineffective, overly costly or evil
• to simplistically paint all private and business activities as good, benign, effective or most beneficial
• to assume that for the cause to win requires use of the traditional political system
• to uncritically share any assumptions with collectivists or totalitarians

From Reason to Freedom Weekly libertarian magazine promoting thinking for oneself, thus helping to create a free, benevolent society.

A Better Constitution?

2008-01-15

The chances are slim that the United States of America can re-establish a limited government, in the spirit of the framers of the constitution. The amendment process has been open to us to bring us back to the original meaning, filling in gaps, all the while retaining the core parameters of governance of our Republic. But that is a cumbersome process for such a big task.

The impetus for this article is the need for a follow-up to a series I wrote on the topic of Troubling Clauses in the U.S. Constitution. More could be added about clauses in the Constitution which were either poorly written, or written in English that no longer has the public meaning it once had, or which have been twisted from their original public meaning. Many more clauses present problems. To repair these by one amendment at a time would take a huge concerted effort and might take too long a time. Is there a better way? Here are the options:

1. Propose An Amendment

Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.

• Current method: Both Houses of Congress can propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote.

2. Ratify An Admendment

After the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the State legislatures can approve of the amendment proposed, or
• Three-fourths of the states can approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).

Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States.

3. Constitutional Convention:

Two-thirds of the State legislatures can call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

A rather thorough-going rewriting is not very likely to happen.

There are several obstacles.

1. The voters or citizens are not yet tired of the government we have, and of other aspects of life due to the destruction of the original constitution.
2. Politicians will not be interested; in fact, will be fearful of any serious attempt to restore the constitution. This is due to the above, and to the power of their constituents within government, the bureaucracy.
3. The power of the bureaucracy.

Why aren't the citizens tired of it? ( It being the degraded general liberty in our lives due to government encroachment on our rights and its growth in power – details to follow) Étienne de la Boétie understood this best of all. In his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, or, Against the One , written in 1548, he presented a powerful essay laying out the various reasons. Governments ordinarily do not rule by brute force.

In an open conflict, it would quickly become clear that the citizens outnumber the government forces. If enough people would realize this and simply stop cooperating, the authority of the State would collapse. Non-cooperation and civil disobedience would work.

Why we Obey

First. The main reason people obey is, simply, habit. They grow up not knowing how things could have been better. And like a rape victim, they sympathize with the aggressor and believe they deserve no better. Being ruled harshly becomes part of their identity. (Boétie is explained in There is No President , by Jeff Snyder) The people are not just taxed, punished and overworked: good behavior (loyalty and obedience) is rewarded. This soup of a package deal eventually begins to feel as if it is “normal life.”

Second, governments provide diversions. There are national holidays, parades, NASA rocket launches, wars, rumors, scandals, things to titillate, disgust or scare you.

Third, governments provide welfare. The State buys our allegiance and our votes. Major political parties take turns promoting slightly different versions of the same. One may offer more welfare to the workers while the other favors business. Divisive issues are used by each to strengthen the support of their membership, but the shared mission is what they really jointly work for: growing the power of government. Each will use any catastrophe, natural, economic or political, to increase government power. They take turns working to increase the power and enjoying the result.

Fourth, governments provide defense. They maintain order and fend off attacks from abroad. They act to defend you even when there is no real threat here at home. Wars are provoked so that the military can spring into action to prove government defends you.

Fifth, rulers remain apart from the citizenry, showing themselves on occasions when good news is likely to be associated with their exalted positions.

However, in the final analysis, the strongest source of power is the gathering of friends who seek to share in the power. There is the inner circle, who obtains nearly absolute power, and larger groups who seek to enter that circle. Thousands execute their orders, seeking promotions and gaining influence by their beastly behavior towards the electorate.

As mentioned above, la Boétie's discovery explains that non-cooperation is the answer. It explains the power of Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Poland 's Solidarity and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. Non-violent resistance undermined tyrannical governments rather than drawing their military wrath. People woke up to the simple lack of legitimacy of their political systems.

Time to Stop Consenting

It is therefore time to withdraw our consent to our government. It is time to take back our pledge of allegiance, to stop voluntarily joining the military or working for government contractors. It is time to convince civil service employees to get honest jobs in the private sector. It is time to start doing business in the black and grey markets, to make sure we pay as little tax as possible.

Write all of your elected state representatives, congressmen, governors, president and vice-president to tell them that they no longer represent you. Tell them that they no longer have authority to act in your name or on your behalf, that you no longer want any of their services or protection. Ask them to get out of the way. Ask them to resign.

What happens then? They're not likely to give up, to step aside, to get out of the way. Rather than capitulate, the bungling increases, the government abuses continue and worsen. A looming crisis for the monetary system brings desparate moves. The beast goes into contortions. Attempts at forcing return to “normalcy” bring us to the bring of martial law. But token compliance does not restore the order that they want.

The State seeks the wisdom of the citizens, but no one steps forward to help the State. The real economy is finally the black market. Real trade begins to use gold. Inflation hits the paper dollars. Taxes dry up. The government payroll fails. The military refuse to take orders against what is called anarchy. Maybe the State fades away? Shades of L. Neil Smith!

Second Thoughts

A new constitution might not work any better than the original one. In the space of one or two hundred years a new constitution might be just as misunderstood and twisted as the old one. Putting effective limits on government might be impossible.

Individuals can join in protective associations, can own and maintain streets and highways, can create mediation systems to extract restitution for acts that damage the life or property of members. Voluntary contributions can even fund manufacturing of weapons and hire soldiers for defense.

Can Government be Limited?

Whatever limits we can place on government they will have to be implemented in the form of law (or constitution). We cannot say at this point, but will research it later, whether natural law can be enforced in such a way as to accomplish there limits. More likely, it will be in the form of enacted laws or human laws.

From Roderick T. Long's “ The Natural Law ” at Libertarian Nation:

“ Natural Law and Human Law

“My account of the traditional conception of Law proper might suggest that the content of this Law is entirely independent of human will. Some legal philosophers in this tradition have indeed thought this. Lysander Spooner, for example, insists that human legislation can neither add to nor remove from the true Law a single provision.

“The more common view historically, however, has been that of the great mediæval philosopher Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas held that the content of true Law included not only Natural Law — that is, the principles of justice requisite to genuine human well-being, and inherent in human nature as created by God — but also Human Law. By Human Law Aquinas does not mean what I have been calling positive law. His idea is rather the following:

“Some of the provisions of Natural Law, while absolute and binding, are often lacking in specificity. For example, it might be a provision of Natural Law that cars going in opposite directions on a highway should drive on opposite sides of the highway — but the Natural Law might be silent on the question of whether cars should drive on the left or on the right. Any decision on this latter question is a matter of indifference, from the standpoint of Natural Law, and may be left up to human convention. All the Natural Law requires is that there be some decision on the matter, and that whichever convention is adopted should then be obeyed. Thus if a particular nation adopts the rule of driving on the right, this latter provision then acquires the force of Law, and so is morally binding. The rule "Drive on the right" is not part of the unchanging Natural Law, but is rather a provision of mutable Human Law. Mediæval jurists spoke of such rules as reducing (that is, as making more specific ) the provisions of Natural Law; but they denied that Human Law could ever contradict the Natural Law. Law in the strict sense, then, covers both Natural Law and Human Law, the latter being subordinate to the former; but Human Law is narrower than positive law, since only those provisions of positive law that are consistent with justice are to be counted as Human Law. The legislator may have some creative freedom, but only within the bounds of the Natural Law, and it is his or her task to discover those bounds, not to stipulate them by fiat.”

From our own experience we can list other examples of such “human laws” or establishment of conventions which do not interfere with natural law. Our opening gambit is to posit the concept of explicitly declaring natural law, with no particular restatement, to be the ground law in the form of a constitution. No laws may be enacted which contradict or restrict people's rights under natural law. This would be followed by a principle that all other rules or laws would be either explications or clarifications of natural law in very general terms and conventions, starting with Gordon Long's example:

•  Drive on the right

•  At intersections, yield to oncoming vehicles from the right

•  Never cut into line ahead of others when forming a queue

•  Pedestrians cross the street only at intersections and marked crossings

•  Vehicles must yield to any pedestrian who has already taken at least one step into the crossing area before the vehicle

•  Producers and sellers shall not assert claims for a product without supporting research

Note that elsewhere in the Long essay disparaging remarks are made about natural law, in the belief that if it does not have divine authority to back it up, it lacks a metaphysical basis. This is remedied by tying it in to Ayn Rand's Objectivist formulation of ethics. See her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness, 1998, New York , Quality Paperback Book Club.