[Australia peeping through the clouds.]

Note:

1. This is part of a collection of posts on “The Current State of Liberty and the Threats it faces”.
2. This is part 1 of a two-part post on “The Big Picture”. See part 2

Below is a sketch of what I consider to be the “Big Picture” of where the modern CL movement is at the moment, what it has achieved in the past, and the problems it faces if it wishes to progress in the future. There are also links to related posts which explore some of these matters in more detail. It covers the following points:

1. CL has a long tradition of defending individual liberty and opposing injustice and the abuse of state power
2. Over four centuries CL has evolved into a coherent theory of individual liberty with four major dimensions (personal, economic, political, and legal freedoms)
3. The traditional Left-Right political spectrum clouds the ideological situation and misunderstands what CL is and its relationship with other ideologies
4. There are several ongoing problems for CLs in agreeing about the legitimate size and power of the state, with different views held by radical, moderate, and “new” liberals
5. We need to show the public in a more convincing way the benefits of Liberty and the harms caused by State Coercion
6. We need to show the public in a more convincing way the harms caused by State Coercion and Intervention in the economy
7. We need to show the public in a more convincing way the very considerable achievements of CL over the past 200 years
8. We need to be honest with ourselves about the failures of CL and the incomplete nature of the “liberal emancipation project”
9. We need to be clear eyed about what still needs to be done if we truly wish to complete this great “liberal emancipation project” FOR ALL PEOPLE

---

1.) CL has a long tradition of defending individual liberty and opposing injustice and the abuse of state power

CL has a long tradition of defending individual liberty and opposing injustice and the abuse of state power and we should be proud of this achievement. Individual liberty and prosperity have been expanded by a combination of violence and peaceful reform going back to the English revolution of the 1640s. For example:

• Violence was resorted to in revolutions in which CLs (or rather “proto-liberals”) such as the English revolution in the 1640s, the American Revolution in the 1770s and 1780s; the French Revolution of the late 1780s and 1790s (before reform was hijacked by the Jacobins and then Napoleon); the 1848 revolutions; and the “velvet revolution” of the early 1990s in Eastern Europe).
• “Indirect” violence was used in the form of organized public protests (“bottom up” reform) which put “pressure” on governments to make reforms. One of the best examples of this was the opposition to the protectionist Corn Laws in the late 1830s and early 1840s organized by Richard Cobden and John Bright through the Anti-Corn Law League
• And there was piece-meal peaceful reforms by liberal governments (“top down” reform) such as the Liberal Party in Britain in the second half of the 19th century. The Party steadily chipped away the crust of privilege over several decades resulting in a very free society (at least domestically) on the eve of WW1. The situation in the Empire was another matter.

A key feature of CL reform was what I call its “ideology of emancipation” of all people from the individuals, groups (classes), and organisations which used coercion to violate their rights to life, liberty, and property. In spite of considerable successes over the past 200 years, unfortunately this program of emancipation has been left unfinished.

Also see these related posts:

1. “The History of Classical Liberalism in 1,730 words (and one picture)” (12 Apr. 2022) here
2. “Classical Liberal Movements: A Four Hundred Year History” (17 Aug. 2021) here
3. “Classical Liberalism as a Revolutionary Ideology of Emancipation” (13 Oct. 2021) here

2.) Over four centuries CL has evolved into a coherent theory of individual liberty with four major dimensions

Over four centuries CL has evolved into a coherent theory of individual liberty with four major dimensions, namely a “bundle” of personal, economic, political, and legal freedoms which, when combined, make up a consistent theory of liberty. A few radical liberals understood this very well, such as the French political economist Frédéric Bastiat who expressed it as follows, that “Liberty is the SUM of ALL these freedoms” [“The Law” (June 1850)]:

Et qu’est-ce que la Liberté, ce mot qui a la puissance de faire battre tous les cœurs et d’agiter le monde, si ce n’est l’ensemble de toutes les libertés, liberté de conscience, d’enseignement, d’association, de presse, de locomotion, de travail, d’échange ; d’autres termes, le franc exercice, pour tous, de toutes les facultés inoffensives ; en d’autres termes encore, la destruction de tous les despotismes, même le despotisme légal, et la réduction de la Loi à sa seule attribution rationnelle, qui est de régulariser le Droit individuel de légitime défense ou de réprimer l’injustice.

And what is “Liberty,” this word that has the power of making all hearts beat faster and of moving the entire)world, if it is not the sum of all freedoms? — freedom of conscience, teaching, and association, freedom of the press, freedom to travel, work, and trade, in other words, the free exercise by all people of all their non-aggressive abilities . And, in still other terms, isn’t freedom the destruction of all despotic regimes, even legal despotism, and the limiting of the law to its sole rational function which is to regulate the individual’s right of legitimate self-defense and to prevent injustice?

This multi-dimensional nature of CL is one of the things which makes it unique when compared to other political ideologies. Another is the willingness of the older CL school to place a high value on consistency in their principles. The lack of consistency is one of the great failings of the modern “neo-liberal” version of liberalism, in which there is a smorgasbord approach to both ideology and policy – there is little bit of economic freedom (but not too much), there is a little bit of personal freedom (but not too much), and so on.

Also see these related posts:

1. “Twelve Key Concepts of Liberty” (25 Apr. 2022) here
2. “The Multi-Dimensionality of Classical Liberalism” (19 April, 2022) here
3. “Liberty as the Sum of All Freedoms” (26 April, 2022) here
4. “How Modern Day CL/Libertarians Differ From “Classical” Classical Liberals” (24 Aug. 2021) here
5. “The Incoherence and Contradictions inherent in Modern Liberal Parties (and one in particular)” (21 Oct. 2021) here
6. “On the (im)Possibility of finding a “Third Way” between Liberalism and Socialism” (19 Apr. 2022) here

3.) The traditional Left-Right political spectrum clouds the ideological situation

The traditional Left-Right political spectrum clouds the ideological situation and misunderstands what CL is and its relationship with other ideologies. A better way to understand the diversity of political and economic thought is a new Left-Right spectrum with the logical endpoints being complete “Liberty” in all dimensions (on the “Left”) and total “Power” (on the “Right”). This 1-dimensional representation also clearly shows the differences in views held by different kinds of liberals almost from the very beginning:

1. “radical” liberals were most hostile to the coercive activities of the state and thus wanted it to be severely rested in its powers or abolished entirely;
2. “moderate liberals” thought the state should be limited only a very few number of functions such as police, defence, and some “public goods”; and
3. the “new liberals” who appeared in the late 19thC (and have come to dominate the modern liberal movement in your own day) accepted a much greater role for the state in the form of a “welfare state” and a “regulatory / administrative” state thus pushing “liberalism” much closer to “social democracy” or “labourism”.

Another way to show the differences and similarities among the various political ideologies is a 2-dimensional “four-quadrant matrix” which plots ideologies along 2 dimensions, namely “economic freedom” along one axis, and “social freedom” along a second axis. This approach shows more clearly the position of CL in relation to other ideologies, who are our ideological “friends” and “foes”, the convergence of the two major parties around the centre since they share so many interventionist and anti-liberal policies, and with whom we might be able to form political alliances and why.

Also see these related posts:

1. “The Spectrum of State Power: or a New Way of Looking at the Political Spectrum” (25 Apr. 2022) here
2. “Plotting Liberty: The Multi-Dimensionality of Classical Liberalism and the Need for a New ‘Left-Right’ Political Spectrum” (17 April, 2022) here

4.) There are ongoing disagreement among CLs about the legitimate size and power of the state

There are several ongoing problems for CLs in agreeing about the legitimate size and power of the state, with different views held by radical, moderate, and “new” liberals. These problems can be categorized as a theoretical problem and as a pair of political problems.

The theoretical problem for CLs has been to agree on exactly how big, powerful, and intrusive (interventionist) the state should be. There was agreement among early liberals that the absolutist and mercantilist states of the 17th and 18th centuries went too far in their exercise of power, but there was little agreement on exactly how many “public goods” the state should provide once the worst excesses of the old regime states had been removed. CLs disagreed about whether the state should provide money, education, and basic welfare for the poor and unemployed, or whether these should all be provided voluntarily by a mixture of charity, non-profit associations, and for-profit undertakings. CLs divided into three camps over this question, with a handful of radical liberals saying there should in effect be no state at all (Molinari, Spencer); a few more advocated an “ultra-minarchist state” which was limited only to police and national defence functions (Bastiat), and the mainstream “moderate liberals” (Smith) arguing for a “minarchist state” which would provide several more public goods. By the end of the 19thC and throughout the 20thC most liberals had gone far beyond the “minarchist” form of limited government and under the banner of the “new liberalism” advocated an interventionist state which was more like that advocated by social democrats.

The political problems concerning a “limited government” were twofold: firstly, how to turn a “big (predatory) state” into a “limited (protective) state”. This is what I call the “initial political problem”. As discussed above, CLs used a combination of violent revolution, popular protest (implied violence), and piecemeal reform to create a number of quite successful relatively “limited governments” in western Europe (Britain and France), north America (the USA and Canada), and in the colonies (such as Australia) during the 19thC.

However, what the experience of the 20thC showed very clearly was that there was another “ongoing political problem”, which was how to keep a “limited government” limited to its cut-down and reduced powers over the longer term. The failure of limited governments to remain limited suggests that this might be the real “utopian” ideal and thus unrealizable, that there are powerful forces at work within all states (including democracies) which are constantly at work to increase the size and power of the state (those who work for it in various capacities), and to use its power to transfer resources (“predation”) from some individuals and groups to others.

We need to understand that we are currently living in a “hybrid system” where there are still considerable (legacy) freedoms which we enjoy and which make possible our high standards of living, but also that there is and has been over decades considerable increases in the power of the state which hampers / impedes the enjoyment of these liberties and the growth of prosperity. Thus the problem we face is twofold, how to protect (and even expand) the liberties we currently enjoy and at the same time, how to reduce the power of the state which hampers or even destroys these liberties and opportunities for wealth creation.

However, the seemingly inexorable rise of the modern warfare / welfare / regulatory / surveillance state in the 20thC is historically unprecedented and at the current moment appears to be unstoppable.

Also see these related posts:

1. “What Classical Liberals were Against” (12 Aug. 2021) here
2. “Classical Liberals on the Size and Functions of the State” (25 Apr. 2022) here
3. “How Modern Day CL/Libertarians Differ From “Classical” Classical Liberals” (24 Aug. 2021) here
4. “On the (im)Possibility of finding a “Third Way” between Liberalism and Socialism” (19 Apr. 2022) here

5.) We need to show the public in a more convincing way the benefits of Liberty and the harms caused by State Coercion

We need to show the public in a more convincing way the benefits of Liberty and the harms caused by State Coercion. To begin with the benefits of liberty, I will briefly summarize them as emancipation, enrichment, individual and social flourishing, placing limits on the power of politicians to cause harm, and enabling the creation of a creative and innovative society.

The Great Emancipation. Liberal ideas and the institutions they inspired / helped create made it possible for a wave of emancipations to sweep the western world which brought an end to a system which gave power and wealth to a privileged few and poverty and oppression to the majority of the people.

The Great Enrichment. Free markets based upon private property, contracts, mutually beneficial cooperation, the division of labour, and free trade made it possible for the “great enrichment” to take place, which brought unheard of prosperity to ordinary people for the first time; the benefits of industrial mass production and innovation which this unleashed are still improving our lives to this day.

Individual and Social Flourishing. Liberty, or to use Milton Friedman’s expression being “free to choose”, makes it possible for individuals to choose and pursue whatever life goals they prefer, to be able to “flourish” and develop as individuals, to choose the people they want to associate with in families or their local communities in order to pursue common goals.

Limiting the Power of Politicians. Political liberty makes it possible for ordinary people (voters) to place a check on the power of politicians and other powerful individuals, to make them be responsible for their actions, and to exercise some control over how the broader community is structured (within the limit of respecting other peoples’ equal rights to life, liberty, and property).

Building a Creative & Innovative Society. A spirit of liberty and toleration creates a society which is creative, innovative, and rich with new ideas, new products, new art and culture, and new opportunities for individuals to pursue as they see fit

Also see these related posts:

1. “Twelve Key Concepts of Liberty” (25 Apr. 2022) here
2. “The Conservative and Revolutionary Faces of Classical Liberalism” (11 Aug. 2021) here
3. “What Classical Liberals were For” (13 Aug. 2021) here
4. “What CLs were For – Part 2: Ends and Means” (19 Oct., 2021) here

6.) We need to show the public in a more convincing way the harms caused by State Coercion and Intervention in the economy

We need to show the public in a more convincing way the harms caused by State Coercion and Intervention in the economy. Just as there are very great benefits to be had from allowing the full development of individual liberty in all its dimensions, there are also very great and inevitable harms and inherent problems in the exercise of political power and interventionism in the economy. I will summarize these as the immorality of coercion, the extent of government failure, the destruction of individual responsibility, the way political power attracts and encourages predation, and the very high risk that state rivalry will lead to war.

The Immorality of Coercion. Government activity is based upon the use of coercion and the violation of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property which is immoral. The use of coercion is immoral even if it is done by the state and its agents.

Government Failure. Government failure is ubiquitous and inevitable; it wastes or destroys the wealth of its citizens; each failure has a tendency to lead to new / further interventions which in turn inevitably fail or impose significant costs.

The Destruction of Individual Responsibility. Government activity discourages the development of independent and responsible behavior on the part of individuals , and encourages a spirit of dependency upon the state and the taxpayers who pay for it.

The Attraction of Public Predation. The coercive powers of the state attract individuals who wish to use those powers for their own benefit at the expence of ordinary taxpayers; they thus become “exploiters” of the productive people who generate wealth in a free market system.

State Rivalry and War. Rivalry between states often results in wars which destroy lives and wealth on a massive scale, which violates the liberty of its citizens through conscription into the army and the subordination of economic activity to the needs of the war state; in the nuclear age the scope for mass destruction and killing by states is so vast that it is hard to contemplate.

Part of the problem is the result of two common errors which people make: firstly in grossly exaggerating the problem of “market failure” and secondly, almost entirely ignoring the problem of “government failure.” CLs have produced an enormous literature on how and why governments “fail” to achieve many of their stated objectives. I will list here only the most important examples:

1. the unavoidable “problem of knowledge” which all government planners face when trying to make decisions (Hayek)
2. the problem of “economic calculation” when free market prices and interest rates are absent (Mises)
3. the “Public Choice problem”, namely that those in power (politicians, bureaucrats) also have a “self-interest” which they will pursue (Buchanan)
4. the problem of the “unintended consequences” of government interventions in the economy (Mises)
5. the problem of the “dynamic of interventionism”, whereby one failure of intervention leads to calls for additional interventions to solve the problem, ad infinitum (Mises)
6. the problem of “predation” (Boettke) and “regulatory capture” , whereby government and bureaucratic bodies are “captured” by the very groups they are attempting to regulate and control

Also see these related posts:

1. see many of the posts listed above.