Classical liberalism

From Libertarian Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Classical liberalism (also called classic liberalism or simply liberalism) is the original form of, and is today a tendency within, liberalism. It is a political school of thought that first emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, upholding individualism and free market economics. Classical liberalism focuses on concepts of individual autonomy and private property, and argues that the sole legitimate function of government is to defend these. Classical liberals promote the use of precisely delineated constitutions that are difficult or impossible to modify, intended to prevent governments from assuming an interventionist role.

The term "classical liberalism" was coined in the 20th century to refer to the general philosophy espoused by pre-1850 liberals; the term refers to the philosophy itself rather than being time specific. The term was coined to avoid confusion with a modern definition of liberalism which does not accept the minimal statism philosophy. American liberalism is a key example of this. Modern libertarianism is seen by some historians as a revival of the original doctrine of liberalism, and libertarians often call themselves "classical liberals" interchangeably; likewise, those who call themselves classical liberals are sometimes referred to as libertarians.

Contents

Introduction

The classic liberal philosophy places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. It forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire philosophy. The precepts of classic liberalism were probably best described by John Locke and Adam Smith, and illuminated much of the thought at the time of the American revolution. As a result, the United States Constitution and the United States Declaration of Independence are both documents that embody many principles of classic liberalism.

Classical liberals believed that individual freedom, the freedom from coersion, and the right to have freedoms protected were paramount. They saw arbitrary centralized authority as the main threat to freedom and saught to decentralize authority by creating limited governments. Classical liberals also the lawlessness of others as a threat to freedom which is why they advocated a limited role for government to create laws, run court systems, protect property, and oversee the defense of the state.

Amy H. Sturgis Ph.D., an expert in Intellectual History, says (The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism) that "Classical liberalism" includes the following:

  • An ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society.
  • The support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system.
  • The desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion
  • The universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions."

The Dispute with Modern/Social Liberalism

Modern liberalism tends to deviate from this definition of the term "liberal" in that it espouses support of the use of the power of government to achieve a variety of desirable goals, ranging from "social justice" to "economic equality". The term classical liberalism is often used interchangeably with the term libertarianism. Raimondo Cubeddu of the Department of Political Science of the University of Pisa says "It is often difficult to distinguish between "Libertarianism" and "Classical Liberalism." Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by those who we may call libertarians of a "minarchist" persuasion: scholars who, following Locke and Nozick, believe a State is needed in order to achieve effective protection of property rights." [1] Modern liberals began to view the market and individualism as a threat to the preservation of freedom and saught to expand government authority to protect freedom. From here, scholars such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Brink Lindsey and others at the Cato Institute argue that modern liberals deviated from liberalism original intent, which was the protection of freedom by limiting centralized authority.

Friedman, Hayek, Schumpeter, and Lindsey argue that modern liberals adopted the name without the original definition which has forced a change in terms for the original liberals. Classical liberal was adopted to refer to original liberalism, libertarianism and neoliberalism have also been used. The Cato Institute briefly discusses these changes and their views on the term classical liberalism, stating from their website:

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy. Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals."

Thus the CATO Institute[2] sees Classical Liberals, liberals, and libertarians being from the same ideological family. Classical liberals, like those within the CATO Institute, often prefer to call themselves liberals because they see themselves as the only rightful inheritors of Liberalism.

Origins

Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy. With roots in ancient Greek and medieval thought, it received an early expression in the 16th century by the School of Salamanca in Spain and its classic formulation in the Enlightenment tradition. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Scottish philosopher Adam Smith is one of the classic works that rejects the philosophy of mercantilism, which advocated state interventionism in the economy and protectionism. The classical liberals saw mercantalism as enriching privileged elites at the expense of well being of the populace. Another early expression is the tradition of a Nordic school of liberalism set in motion by a Finnish parliamentarian Anders Chydenius. Classical liberalism tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual liberty and private property. The phrase is often used as a means of delineating the older philosophy called liberalism from modern liberalism, in order to avoid semantic confusion.

File:Adam Smith.jpg
Adam Smith
Classic Liberalism is close to 18th century Liberalism. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Adam Smith is considered one of the classic foundations of liberalism. While Adam Smith provides an explanation of liberalism and economics, the legal and philosophical understanding originates with scholars like John Locke and evolves through Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Immanuel Kant, in the Perpetual Peace, creates an international liberal framework to foster a sustainable world peace.

The term "liberal" derived from this time period (generally the 18th and 19th century) with its origination stemming from the belief in individual freedom, economic freedom (including free markets), and limited representative government. This original understanding of the word "liberal" carries the same meaning in a few countries, but in most countries the meaning and ideology behind liberalism differ to certain degrees (e.g. social security, tariffs, intervention and regulation into the economy, wage and price controls) from its meaning in the eighteenth century. In many countries liberalism holds a position between classical liberalism and American liberalism. Only a few major parties adhere to classical liberalism, most of the liberal parties accept limited government intervention in economics.

File:Kant.jpg
Immanuel Kant
Classic Liberals include all original liberals such as John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Stuart Mill with his work On Liberty, and even more modern liberals such as Von Mises, Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Classical liberal institutions include the Frasier Institute (Canada), The Hoover Institution (Stanford University), and The Cato Institute to name a few.

Classical liberal philosophy

Classical liberals subscribe to a very basic and universal understanding of the world and the rights of all humans. Classical Liberals believe in private property, free markets, economic competition, freedom from coercion, limited government (all economic freedom), the rule of law, and individual rights (natural rights is also used). These principals apply to all people, of all faiths, cultures, societies, ethnicities, and histories, and it is stated that all peoples are capable of achieving liberal government and liberal societies, not just western cultures. (Classical) liberals prefer a laissez-faire style of government with a microeconomic focus and understanding of economic operations.

Classical liberals reject wealth transfers (though admire the goal of helping the needy), tariffs or other trade barriers such as quotas, regulated markets (also known as a mixed economy ), capital controls, and wage and price controls. As a general rule these macroeconomic policies are considered by them as reducing the general welfare of society. Social security and tariffs, for example, are viewed by Milton Friedman as perverse wealth transfers, meaning wealth transfers from poor to rich. Hayek and Friedman also believed that economic freedom would help build and protect political and civil freedoms, while a loss in economic freedom meant a loss in civil and political freedoms.

Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom are examples of this philosophy updated for modern man and woman to understand (classical) liberalism.

Key Thinkers

Below is a list of Key liberal thinkers as Liberalism developed and maintained a laissez-faire political-economic outlook.

John Locke

John Locke Locke's major works A Letter Concerning Toleration and Two Treatises of Government were both published in 1689. Collectively they argue for greater religious toleration and for a state that respects the natural laws laid down in a Social Contract.

Locke was responsible for the idea of "natural rights" which he saw as "life, liberty and property". To Locke, property was a more compelling natural right than the right to participate in collective decision-making: he would not endorse democracy in government, as he feared that the "tyranny of the majority" would seek to deny people their rights to property. Nevertheless, the idea of natural rights played a key role in providing the ideological justification for the American revolution and French revolution.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant

Kant further advanced the idea of a liberal peace by demonstrating conditions and requisistes for international peace among states in his work, the Perpetual Peace

The Founding Fathers

Founding Fathers

Adam Smith

Adam Smith Adam Smith believed that the government had three and only three roles to play: 1.) "protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies...which can only be performed by means of a military force" 2.) "protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it..." and 3.) "erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which...though most advantageious...are such that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small group of indviduals" which implies that governments should work to correct market externalities, but Smith did not argue for government run monopolies to permanently solve externality problems.

Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill Quote from "On Liberty" (1859)The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant - John Stuart Mill

Joeseph Schumpeter

Joseph Schumpeter

According to political scientist Michael Doyle, Schumpeter advanced and modernized Smith's economic assesment of capitalisms role in creating peaceful relations among states, in his work the Sociology of Imperialism.

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

Friedrich von Hayek

Friedrich von Hayek

Hayek was a contemporary, though friendly, critic of John Maynard Keynes and believed that the outcomes of Keynes' interventionist policies would result in the destruction of civil liberal society. He further demonstrated this thesis in his work, the Road to Serfdom arguing that restrictions among economic freedom result in a loss of civil and political freedom.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman

Economically, Friedman is known for his monetarist and shock therapy theories. Friedman, like Hayek believed that economic freedom created and protected civil and political freedom and that the loss of economic freedom lead to a loss in civil and political freedom. His most famous popular works include Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose where he advances the ideas of laissez-faire free market liberal government.

(Classical) Liberalism and the great depression

Classical liberals, including Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market. In Friedman's work, "Capitalism and Freedom" he elucidated government regulation that occurred before the great depression including heavy regulations upon banks that prevented them, he argued, from reacting to the markets' demand for money. Furthermore, the U.S. Federal government had created a fixed currency pegged to the value of gold. This pegged value created a massive surplus of gold, but later the pegged value was too low which created a massive migration of gold from the U.S. Friedman and Hayek both believed that this inability to react to currency demand created a run on the banks that the banks - stifled by state unit banking laws - were no longer able to handle, and that and the fixed exchange rates between the dollar and gold both worked to cause the Great Depression by creating, and then not fixing, deflationary pressures. He further argued in this thesis, that the government caused more pain upon the American public by first raising taxes, then by printing money to pay debts (thus causing inflation), the combination of which helped to wipe out the savings of the middle class.

Others note that the rising tariffs and reduced trade and export industries and helped slow economic growth. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act passed in the summer of 1930 is regarded by some free market scholars as an important variable in worsening economic conditions at the onset of the depression.

Some economists since Milton Friedman have continued to argue that the causes of this great depression have been erased by populist myths from Keynesians and leftists in an attempt to legitimize their own economic prefrences at the expense of the truth.[3]

Liberalism against totalitarianism

Liberalism always defined itself as the freedom from arbitrary tyranny or totalitarianism, which had become the prevelant alternative to liberalism. The term was first used by Giovanni Gentile to describe the socio-political system set up by Mussolini. Stalin would apply it to German Nazi-ism, and after the war it became a descriptive term for the common characteristics of fascist and Marxist-Leninist regimes. Totalitarian regimes sought and tried to implement absolute centralized control over all aspects of society, in order to achieve prosperity and stability. Such governments often justified such absolutism by arguing that the survival of their civilization was at risk. Opposition to totalitarian regimes acquired great importance in liberal and democratic thinking, and totalitarian regimes were often portrayed as trying to destroy liberal democracy.

In Italy and Germany, nationalist governments linked corporate capitalism to the state, and promoted the idea that their nations were culturally and racially superior, and that conquest would give them their rightful "place in the sun". The propaganda machines of these totalitarian states argued that democracy was weak and incapable of decisive action, and that only a strong leader could impose necessary discipline.

The rise of totalitarianism became a lens for liberal thought. Many liberals began to analyze their own beliefs and principles, and came to the conclusion that totalitarianism arose because people in a degraded condition turn to dictatorships for solutions. From this, it was argued that the state had the duty to protect the economic well being of its citizens. As Isaiah Berlin said, "Freedom for the wolves means death for the sheep." This growing body of liberal thought argued that reason requires a government to act as a balancing force in economics.

Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, believed that the rise of totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist, fascist, or Nazi, were the result of the restriction of economic freedom. Economic freedom was, thus, restricted by government intervention and regulation of the economy. Hayek states:

"…economic planning, conducted independently on a national scale, are bound in the aggregate effect to be harmful even from a purely economic point of view and, in addition to produce serious international friction. That there is little hope of international order or lasting peace so long as every country is free to employ whatever measures it desires in its own immediate interest, however damaging they may be to others…" Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, The University of Chicago Press, 1944. p. 240.

Here Hayek is demonstrating the rationale behind why economic policies like those subscribed to by Keynesian economists can not and could not be compatible to freedom and peace much in the same way Nazis, Fascists, and Communists failed to retain or create free and peaceful states

The more economic freedom that was lost, he said, the more civil and political freedom would be lost as well. Hayek argued against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments Keynesians were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch that sought the elimination of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical. The same outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. H Hayek also saw these economic controls being instituted in the United Kingdom and the United States and warned against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments "Keynesians liberals" were attempting to avoid.

Nobel Prize winning economists such as Hayek and Milton Friedman have argued for years that economic freedom leads to greater political and civil rights and those governments who control the economy tend to limit economic rights and eventually will limit political, civil rights of their people. Friedman states,

"economic freedom is simply a requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction it reduces the area over which political power is exercised." Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Harcort Brace Janovich, 1980, p. 2-3

Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. Classical liberal studies by the Canadian "conservative" free market oriented Fraser Institute, the American "conservative" free market oriented Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal state that there is a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms to the extent claimed by Friedrich von Hayek. They agree with Hayek that those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms.

Classical liberalism and freedom

The major tenenat of liberalism remains freedom of the individual from coersion and tyranny. Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. (Classical) liberal studies by the Canadian conservative Fraser Institute, the American conservative Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argue that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once said. They agree with Hayek's statement that those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms. On the other hand, economic freedom does not necesarily imply civil and political freedom.

F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman have both observed that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. A link between a lack of economic freedom and human rights violation has been observed over the last century; easily seen by the atrocities committed by the least economically free countries in the world which include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia...

Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, John M. Keynes, or Franklin D. Roosevelt. Some individuals believed Hayek's thesis was coming true shortly after its publication, asClement Atlee's Labour Party, after winning a land slide election in post World War II England, encouraged private business owners to hand over their property, nationalized many industries, instituted wage and price controls, and even attempted to place restrictions on citizens ability to seek employment at will, by requiring citizens to seek permission from the central government. Another example, in the 1960s the Labour Government of Harold Wilson placed a limit of £30 on money people could take abroad to avoid the consequences of an inflatonary policy pursued to create full-employment. Nevertheless, British democratic institutions survived and in 1979 a radical Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher was elected, which, sometimes painfully, re-liberalised the economy.

Recent empirical studies by the Frasier Institute, Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argued that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once observed. As he stated, those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms.

Classical liberalism and rhetorical liberalism as practiced in the United States

In the United States, the Republican Party has been accused by some of merely paying lip service to classical liberal philosophy since the New Deal era. Republican president Richard Nixon, for example, instituted price controls on goods during an economic crisis in the 1970s (an act inconsistent with a strict classical liberal view). While the "New Deal" Democratic Carter administration oversaw the deregulation of the airline industry while also restricting the money supply (a harsh monetarist policy) to combat stagflation which plagued the United States. Many small liberal gains were achieved under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as liberalism gained steam world wide, but the country continued to mount a national debt because of an imbalanced budget. The Democrats, under Bill Clinton, took things a little further, balancing the U.S. budget, creating NAFTA, and influencing the birth of the GATT94 WTO, all of which helped usher in a prosperous decade for the United States. The current President Bush has been accused of only verbally supporting free and open markets, while continuing to mount public debt and even raising trade barriers to protect the American steel industry. Despite some strides toward liberalism, the changes made have been small, to the point where some argue that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans maintain political platforms that reflect classical liberalism even though segments of both parties argue for less free trade and more managed trade. The US Libertarian Party has made these arguments central to its politics, and claims that it is the true party of classical liberalism.

Within the United States, classical liberalism is rhetorically confused with conservatism. The Cato Institute, a think tank known for its advocation of classical liberalism in government, states from its website: [4]

"Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives."

Many classical liberals argue that modern liberalism, as it is practiced, is mostly rhetorical lip service to liberalism's highest ideals of freedom, rather than a function of its basic assumptions: the free market. See liberalism for further understanding.

Classical liberalism versus 'modern' or social liberalism

The Industrial Revolution greatly increased material wealth, but made social problems more visible, such as pollution, child labor, and overcrowding in the cities. Material and scientific progress led to greater longevity and a reduced mortality rate. The population increased dramatically. The downside of this was an oversupply of labor, which led to declining wages. Economic liberals, such as John Locke, Adam Smith, and Wilhelm von Humboldt felt that the problems of an industrial society would correct themselves without government intervention.

In the 19th century, the voting franchise in most liberal democracies was extended, and these newly enfranchised citizens often voted in favor of government solutions to the problems they faced in their everyday lives. A rapid increase in literacy and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals demanded laws against child labor and laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety and a minimum wage. The laissez faire economic liberals countered that such laws were an unjust imposition on life, liberty, and property, not to mention a hindrance to economic development. Thus began the struggle. On the one hand, economic liberals, who stress economic freedom and desire small governments. On the other hand, social liberals, who stress equality of opportunity, and desire a government large enough to protect citizens from the consequences of economic or natural difficulties that they consider too serious to be overcome without government aid. This 19th century social liberalism was the first significant split from classical liberalism. According to Milton Friedman:

"Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasisis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the tweentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisistes of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century merchantalism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!"(Capitalism and Friedman, 5)

By the end of the 19th century, a growing body of liberal thought asserted that, in order to be free, individuals needed access to the requirements of fulfillment, including protection from exploitation and education. In 1911, L.T. Hobhouse published Liberalism, which summarized the new liberalism, including qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy, and the collective right to equality in dealings, what he called "just consent."

Today, so-called "modern liberalism" has been conglomerated with socialism. Classical liberals believe that liberal philosophy is supposed to support the overall expansion of freedom in all areas, they most especially disagree with modern liberals and their embracing of stances that are inherently about taking away freedoms, such as gun control, affirmative action, high taxation, involuntary social security, campaign finance reform, and opposition to school choice.

In Hayek's book The Constitution of Liberty, in the chapter, "Why I am not a Conservative" Hayek explains to his readers that he was not a conservative because he is a liberal; and had refused to give up that label. In the United States the term liberal had changed meaning, and according to Hayek this was because Franklin D Roosevelt had been labeled a socialist and a leftist because of his New Deal Policies. Fearing the consequences of that label, FDR called himself a Liberal instead. Since that day, Liberal in the United States has had a different meaning from the original, 18th and 19th century meaning of the word. People who stayed close to this original meaning label themselves often "Classic Liberal", "Classical Liberal" or "Libertarian" to avoid confusion (especially in America ).

Discusing the difference between classical liberalism as the original meaning of liberalism and modern liberalism, Joeseph Schumpeter states "As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label" implying that modern liberals have "stolen" the word and given it a definition opposite of its original meaning.(Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, 1954. p 394)

Classical liberalism and the Austrian School

Proponents of the Austrian School (sometimes called neo-classical liberals), such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, reject modern liberalism claims to follow on from classical liberalism.[5][6] According to Friedman

"Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasisis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to acheive objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the tweentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisistes of or alternatives to freedom."

The Austrian School instead see itself as the true inheritors of classical liberalism, with Hayek arguing that he was not a conservative because he was a liberal; and had refused to give up that label.[7] Hayek believed that conservatives believed in protecting the status quo, a status quo of merchantalism in trade, collectivism in society, and centralized authority in politics. He argued that liberalism, which believed in limited decentralized government, individual freedom, and free trade was a radical and progressive philosophy dedicated to sweeping positive changes.

Criticism of the Austrian School as classical liberals

However, others have rejected this claim describing the Austrian school economists as "right-wing economic liberals", "liberal conservatives" and as the "new right" viewing their efforts at co-opting the term as ignoring the political side of classical liberalism and only focussing on the work of the classical economists such as Smith and Ricardo. [8][9][10] Furthermore, it has been argued that "Hayek's view of classical liberal principles is a peculiar one" which ignores the work of pre-eminent thinkers such as Locke and Mill. [11]

Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism

Libertarians may describe themselves as classical liberals but not all classical liberals will describe themselves as libertarians. Libertarians do share many philisophical, political, and economic undertones with classical liberalism, including the ideas of laissez-faire government, free markets, and individual freedom. Classical liberals understood that in order to protect individual liberty the government must be limited in what it can do. The Libertarian party takes this classical liberal understanding alittle further by arguing for greater restrictions upon the government.

While the Libertarian Party opposes any government funding of education, classical liberals such as J.S. Mill and Milton Friedman have favored government-funded vouchers for basic schooling. Where the Libertarians want no subsidies at all for private firms, the eminent classical liberal Friedrich Hayek acknowledges that some subsidies may be justified for the general good of society (but never for the good of the firm in question, and never merely for the purpose of redistributing income). While the capital-L Libertarians want to leave the provision of minimum sustenance for the poor or disabled entirely to private charity, classical liberals often support residual social welfare benefits. Friedman proposed a negative income tax (which establishes a minimum income) and Hayek favored a government role in ensuring minimum food and shelter for all. Finally, while some Libertarians tend toward a near-absolute sanctity of contract and private property, Hayek was open to the regulation of monopolies in some cases (mainly by requiring them to treat all customers equally) and generally opposed contracts in restraint of trade (including the use of unions as labor cartels).

Criticism of Libertarian as Classical Liberalism

The modern traditions of libertarianism and neoliberalism claim the ideological inheritance of classical liberalism. However, many object to this blending of what they see as two separate, opposing philosophies(Katz 2003.) Samuel Freeman states that:

"that libertarianism’s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power, to be be impartially exercised for the common good."

Those who emphasize the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism argue that libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally incompatible because the checks and balances provided by liberal institutions conflict with the support by most libertarians of complete economic deregulation (Haworth, 1994, pp. 27).

See also

External links

References

  1. ^  Kohl, B. and Warner, M., Scales of Neoliberalism International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Volume 28 (2004) pg1
  2. ^  Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies: An Introduction Macmillan Press pg93
  3. ^  Hayek, F.A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty University of Chicago Press chapter "Why I am not a Conservative"
  4. ^  Lessnoff, M. H. (1999) Political Philosophers of the Twentieth Century Blackwell
  5. ^  Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies: An Introduction Macmillan Press pg155
  6. ^  Festenstein, M. and Kenny, M. (2005) Political Ideologies Oxford University Press
  7. ^  Gamble, A. (1996) "Hayek: The Iron Cage of Liberty" Blackwell Publishers pg 106
  • Haworth, A. (1994) Anti-libertarianism. Markets, philosophy and Myth Routledge
  • Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press, 1944.
  • Hayek, F.A. The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, 1960.
  • Katz, C. J., “Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism” American Journal of Political Science Volume 47 (2003)
Retrieved from "http://libertarianwiki.org/Classical_liberalism"
Personal tools