The Basic Tenets of Real Liberalism: A Lecture/Seminar (1991)

“The Basic Tenets of Real Liberalism: A Lecture/Seminar (1991)”

By David M. Hart

[Created: 27 July, 1991]
[Revised: 28 October, 2024]

This is part of a collection of Papers by David M. Hart

Introduction

This was the introduction to a lecture/seminar given at the Institute for Humane Studies "Liberty and Society" Summer Seminar at the College of Notre Dame, Belmont, California, 27 July - 9 August 1991. The reading and study guide for the seminar was the full 5 part series "The Basic Tenets of Real Liberalism" written by me and Walter Grinder and which was published in the Humane Studies Review (IHS, 1982-86). [Online].

Introductory Lecture to IHS "Liberty and Society" Summer Seminar, August 1991↩

A lecture given at the Institute for Humane Studies' "Liberty and Society" Summer Seminar at the College of Notre Dame, Belmont, California, 27 July - 9 August 1991. The inspiration and assistance of Walter E. Grinder of the IHS is acknowledged and much appreciated by the author.

Introduction

My task this evening is to introduce you to some of the basic principles of classical liberal thought to which we will be referring over the next few days. I intend to do this in both a theoretical and historical fashion. I will be drawing upon some of the great liberal philosophers, economists, historians and other social theorists in order to demonstrate to you that some liberal ideas have a long historical pedigree and that there is an historical continuity in liberal thought which stretches back several centuries. We will also see that, although there are some aspects of liberal thought which have remained constant over many centuries (such as regard for the individual and abhorrence of violence), liberal ideas have not been etched in stone like some political Decalogue brought down from the mountain by some liberal Moses. Certain key concepts, such as what constitutes an autonomous and free individual, have evolved considerably over the years. For example, a free individual was once thought to be limited to white males of a particular social class who had the right to exercise political and economic liberties. In the 17th and 18th centuries the idea of what constituted an individual underwent dramatic changes and, under the influence of the Enlightenment and the idea of democracy, now came to include all able-bodied white males. A further transformation of the concept of the individual was undertaken in the early and mid-19thC when blacks and women were gradually admitted to the club of those who could enjoy political and economic liberties. One can only speculate on the further transformations the concept might undergo in the future - perhaps children and intelligent machines might one day be include in what it means to be a free and autonomous individual? But we can safely leave these speculations to the discussion groups for the time being. My task is to examine some of the constants of classical liberal thought such as the value placed on the individual and the morality and economic efficiency of the free market.

Let me begin with an extended definition of what I consider classical liberalism to be. I believe that classical liberalism comprises a coherent body of principles which is held together and given meaning by two fundamental moral principles. The first is the right of the individual to own justly acquired property (i.e. non-violently acquired property). The second principle is the right of the individual not to be aggressed against by others. All the other tenets of classical liberalism flow from these two fundamental rights of ownership and non-aggression. One of the aims of this seminar is to show how and why these two principles are fundamental to the political philosophy of classical liberalism and what the consequences of them are.

At its most fundamental level, the classical liberal is concerned with the dignity, moral worth and "sanctity" (to use an outmoded religious expression) of the individual (how the individual is defined I will leave aside for the moment). The classical liberal holds that all individuals are unique and that their uniqueness and differences are the source from which their various, different values flow. As a consequence of these different values and interests which individuals hold comes, in turn, the need to engage in exchanges, to trade peacefully, and to form all manner of voluntary associations in order to satisfy the human needs for companionship, personal security and cultural expression.

The classical liberal also believes that every individual human being is morally autonomous and should be held fully responsible for his or her actions, if and only if those actions impinge upon the rights of others. Only when human uniqueness and the right to autonomy are respected (by respecting the right to privacy of others and tolerating their often irritating differences) can each and every individual achieve a certain measure of self-actualisation or, in other words, to develop his or her individual potential to the fullest.

The means by which the privacy and autonomy of the individual is defined and protected is by means of property rights. Each person has, as some of the founding fathers of the US constitution recognised, an imprescriptable right of ownership in his or her own body, as well as in all objects with which that individual's labour has been "mixed" (to use John Locke's colourful phrase).The right of property in one's person and the physical objects around one defines an inviolable "private sphere" (Benjamin Constant) around the individual and thus protects him or her from the aggression and invasion of others. Only when property rights are respected and protected can the individual develop as he or she thinks fit.

Respect for rights can also provide a sound method by which social conflicts can be avoided or, if necessary, be resolved once conflict has broken out. In order to respect property one needs a legal system whose function it is to enforce and protect individual property rights. Traditionally, it has been the task of common law to do this and to adjudicate peacefully the conflicting claims to property which are sometimes the inevitable result of otherwise well-intentioned human interaction. Central to the classical liberal philosophy is the principle of justice. By this, following the great 19th century liberal philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer, I mean that each person should do towards every other person all that justice requires him or her to do (e.g. if property rights have been violated, to return stolen property, or pay restitution for damages caused to another's person or property) and that each person should abstain from doing to another person anything that justice forbids him or her to do (i.e. to leave others alone to the enjoyment of their justly acquired property, to refrain from any act of robbery, arson, murder or any other crime against the person or property of another individual).

When individual personal and property rights are respected, the unmolested free exchange of property titles between individuals can take place. This freedom to trade is a fundamental principle of classical liberalism and extends to both the domestic and foreign sphere of human activity. Free trade as a policy is only the application of the principle of voluntarism to economic policy matters. When the interests of both parties are rightly understood, there is complete harmony of interests. On an international plane, this harmony of interests results in peace - which I regard as the most important policy implication of classical liberal thought.

As Friedrich Hayek has observed, the unintended result of innumerable voluntary exchanges and interactions is a "spontaneous order." Being neither the planned outcome or the desire of any one person or group of people, the spontaneous order of the market is rather the unintended consequence of free people going about their rightful business. If the original property rights which individuals hold are just, then the result of this dynamic and constantly adjusting socio-economic constellation will be a just social order. The existence of traded property rights which might not have been justly acquired is a serious problem which classical liberals have to address, especially in settler societies such as the USA, Canada and Australia in which the claims of the original native inhabitants to property in land is fiercely disputed. If the original distribution of property rights is unjust, then no amount of peaceful trading can undo the "original sin" of unjust dispossession. A similar enormous problem of determining the just distribution of property rights confronts those eastern European countries endeavouring to undo the catastrophe of communism. The egg of property rights has been scrambled, but can the omelette be unscrambled to anybody's satisfaction or for the sake of justice? I cannot answer this question here but I am confident that by using our reason we can investigate and understand the social universe around us. We can, I believe, determine when a claim to property is just and when it is not.

Reason is the tool we must use to arbitrate disputes and to resolve the conflicts between individuals. Classical liberals eschew force as a means of solving disputes and believe that it should be used only as a last resort in order to defend personal and property rights when all other methods of solving the dispute have failed. The organised use of force by states is war and to classical liberals war is essentially a criminal activity which is undertaken by governments in the interests of particular vested interests and at the tremendous expense of individuals, either as domestic taxpayers or victims of the force.

If war and other forms of violent activity can be reduced to their absolute minimum and the peaceful effects of trade and voluntary association are permitted to be felt, then there are some grounds for optimism for the future. The market is the best means we have for improving the material and spiritual condition of the broad mass of the people. Only if individuals are allowed to pursue their own interests free of the intrusive supervision and forceful intervention of the state, the church or political parties, can we achieve the extraordinary high level of prosperity and progress which the market promises us.

These are some of the basic principles of classical liberalism which we will be discussing both formally in the lectures and informally at other occasions over the next few days. I would like to discuss in more depth the following:

the idea of individuality and the need for privacy
the idea of tolerance and moral autonomy
the idea of social harmony, free trade and peace