Classical liberalism
From Free net encyclopedia
| The Liberalism Series Part of the Politics series |
| Schools |
| American liberalism |
| Classical liberalism |
| Radicalism |
| Economic liberalism |
| Neoliberalism |
| Ordoliberalism |
| Paleoliberalism |
| Social liberalism |
| Libertarianism |
| Ideas |
| Freedom |
| Rights |
| Liberal democracy |
| Open society |
| Negative & positive Liberty |
| Individualism |
| Free market |
| Mixed economy |
| Parties |
| Liberalism worldwide |
| Liberal International |
| ELDR/ALDE CALD · ALN · Relial |
| Politics Portal · edit |
Classical liberalism can have two meanings:
- early liberalism as it developed from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill
- a political ideology, that traces back to early liberalism, especially to the closely related political economy.
- Early liberalism is discussed extensively in the main article on liberalism. This entry is about both part of early liberalism and the ideology mentioned above.
Classical liberalism (also called classic liberalism) is a political ideology that embraces individual rights, private property and a laissez-faire economy, a government that exists to protect the liberty of each individual from others, and a constitution that protects individual autonomy from governmental power.<ref>Sturgis, Amy H. The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism, The LockeSmith Institute, 1994</ref> It originated in the 17th and 18th centuries. As such, it is often seen as being the natural ideology of the industrial revolution and its subsequent capitalist system. Ideas such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, self-responsibility, and free markets were first proposed by classical liberal thinkers before they were also adopted by thinkers of other ideologies. Classical liberals tend to focus on the individual, freedom, reason, justice and toleration.<ref>Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies: An Introduction, Macmillan Press page 27</ref>. Classical liberal ideas inspired both the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
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 economist 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 liberalism is "not necessarily a democratic doctrine, for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."<ref>Ryan, Alan. Liberalism. A Companion to Contemprary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.293.</ref> Hence, classical liberals advocate constitutional protection of individual liberty and property from majority rule, though usually supporting, and limiting, popular vote merely for electing officials.
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.
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 economies.
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 individual, freedom, reason, justice, toleration and the rights of the individual. 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 liberalism and freedom
Classical liberal thinkers are the originators of hugely influential ideas such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and the notion of Natural Rights. This ideas have gained near universal acceptance and are closely associated with the idea of democracy, despite numerous classical liberal objections to the idea. An example of this may be seen in James Madison's essay, Federalist Papers #10, where he advocates a constitutional republic over a "pure democracy" seeing that when "a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens."
Key Thinkers
John Locke
As the industrial revolution began in the United Kingdom, so did the first conceptions of liberalism. John Locke (1632-1704) defended religious freedom in his important work A Letter Concerning Toleration published, along with his other important work Two Treatises of Government in 1689. However, Locke would not extend his view on religious freedom to Catholics.
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
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 As a classical liberal, Kant opposed the concept of majority rule over the individual. In opposition to democracy, he advocates a constitutional republic. He says, "Democracy is necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty." (Perpetual Peace, II, 1795)
The Founding Fathers
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.
John Stuart Mill
Though Mill is considered a utilitarian, he did seek to reconcile it with an advocacy of inviolable individual liberty. In a quote from "On Liberty" (1859) he says, "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."
Friedrich von Hayek
- Hayek was a contemporary 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
- Friedman is a classical liberal<ref>Formaini, Robert L. Milton Friedman—Economist as Public Intellectual. Economic Insights Volume 7, Number 2. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2002.</ref>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. Friedman also classifies himself as both a "libertarian" and a "classical liberal."<ref>Friedman and Freedom, Interview with Peter Jaworski. The Journal, Queen's University, March 15, 2002 - Issue 37, Volume 129</ref>
Other important classical liberal thinkers
Voltaire
Liberalism against totalitarianism
Liberalism always defined itself as the freedom from arbitrary tyranny or totalitarianism, which had become the prevalent 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.
Classical liberalism and modern 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 action.
In the 19th century, the voting franchise in most liberal democracies was extended, and these newly enfranchised citizens often voted in favor of government intervention. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals instigated laws against child labor and laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety. The laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development. This 19th century social liberalism was the first significant split from classical liberalism.
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 education and protection from exploitation. 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."
Classical liberals believe that liberal philosophy supports the expansion of freedom in all areas, they most especially disagree with modern liberals and their embracing of stances that are considered infringements on personal liberty, such as gun control, affirmative action, high taxation, social security, and support of public schools.
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 time, Liberal in the United States has had a different meaning from the original, 18th and 19th century meaning of the word.
See liberalism for further explanation.
Classical liberalism and neo-classical economists
Proponents of the Austrian School and the Chicago School (sometimes called neo-classical liberals), such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, reject claims that modern liberalism represents a continuous development from classical liberalism.<ref>Kohl, B. and Warner, M., Scales of Neoliberalism International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Volume 28 (2004) pg1</ref> <ref>Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies: An Introduction Macmillan Press pg93</ref> 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 emphasis, 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 twentieth century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisistes of or alternatives to freedom. Template:Citation needed
Neo-classical economists instead see theirselves as the true inheritors of classical liberalism. For example, Hayek argued that he was not a conservative because he was a liberal; and had refused to give up that label to modern usurpers.<ref>Hayek, F.A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty University of Chicago Press chapter "Why I am not a Conservative"</ref>
Criticism of neo-classical economists as classical liberals
However, others have rejected this claim describing the neo-classical 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.<ref>Lessnoff, M. H. (1999) Political Philosophers of the Twentieth Century Blackwell; Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies: An Introduction Macmillan Press pg155; Festenstein, M. and Kenny, M. (2005) Political Ideologies Oxford University Press</ref> 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.<ref>Gamble, A. (1996) "Hayek: The Iron Cage of Liberty" Blackwell Publishers pg 106</ref>
Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism
Libertarians tend to use the phrase "classical liberal" interchanghebly with "libertarian". An example of this is the CATO Institute sees Classical Liberals, liberals, and libertarians being from the same ideological family.<ref>http://www.cato.org/about/about.html</ref> Thus the CATO Institute prefers to call itself "liberal" because they see themselves as the only rightful inheritors of Liberalism. Libertarians do share many philosophical, political, and economic undertones with classical liberalism, including the ideas of laissez-faire government, free markets, and individual freedom. Classical liberals maintained 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 further by arguing for greater restrictions upon the government.
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."<ref>http://www.univ.trieste.it/~etica/2003_2/</ref>
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.<ref>Katz, C. J., “Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism” American Journal of Political Science Volume 47 (2003)</ref> 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."<ref>Freeman, S., Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View Philosophy & Public Affairs Volume 30 (2001) pg3</ref> (disputed — see [[: talk:Classical liberalism#{{{1|Disputed}}}|talk page]])
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.<ref>Haworth, A. (1994) Anti-libertarianism. Markets, philosophy and Myth Routledge pg 27</ref>
See also
- Austrian School
- Capitalism
- Free market
- Globalization
- Privatization
- Liberalization
- Liberalism
- Libertarianism
- Contributions to liberal theory
References
<references/>