Category Archives: CL Tradition

The Spectrum of State Power: or a New Way of Looking at the Political Spectrum

Posted on by

[Revised: 25 Apr. 2022]

[Note: This post is part of a series on the History of the Classical Liberal Tradition]

The degree to which classical liberals have upheld the principle that the state should not use (or at least minimise its use of) violence or coercion (the “non-aggression principle” (NAP)) is reflected in their attitudes about how powerful the state should be and what functions it is legitimate for it to engage in. Liberals have held a considerable range of views about what the proper functions of the state, should be. It is a topic which has divided liberals from the beginning, not to mention divided them from advocates of other political philosophies which support varying amounts of government coercion like conservatism, socialism, marxism, fascism, and other forms of government intervention in the economy (“interventionism”). Accordingly, we can assign all political points of view to a spectrum based upon their adherence to the NAP with one extreme being no limits to the power of the state to use (or initiate) aggression against individuals (“total power”) – what I term “the Right” – and the other being the strictest possible adherence to the NAP (or “total liberty”)- or what I term “the Left”. I have drawn up the following diagram to illustrate this version of the “political spectrum”:

[See a larger version of this image.]

It should be noted that the traditional “left-right spectrum” positions the total power of the communist state on “the left” and the nearly equally total power of the fascist/Nazi state of “the right”, which leaves the classical liberal state in the centre or the right of the centre. I think this way of distinguishing between different political philosophies and their different attitudes towards the use of state coercion (“power”) is misleading to say the least. In my “Liberty vs. Power” spectrum the ultra-minimal or severely limited state is at the far right, the total power of the communist state is at the far left, while the interventionist welfare state is to the left of the centre.

The reason for this is that historically “liberals” opposed the status quo of their day (for example, the absolutist state, or the mercantilist state”) and usually sat on the left hand-side of the speaker in the Chamber, while the defenders of the regime (the status quo) sat on the right of the Speaker. Thus it seems logical that, now that various forms of statism (such as the welfare state, the regulatory state, the warfare state) have become the new status quo, the opponents of these forms of interventionism should again be considered to be on “the left”.

Thus we have the following categories of more or less “statist” regimes situated on “the right”:

COMMUNISM: a fully planned economy; state controlled society; rule by single Party (Stalinism, Pol Pot, China)

FASCISM/NAZISM: state directed private industry; adulation of leader; war & conquest (Italy. Germany 1930s-40s

WELFARE STATE: state provision of health, welfare, education; significant regulation of economy (Western Europe, Australia)

WELFARE/WARFARE STATE: significant state intervention in health, education, welfare; significant regulation of economy; Military-Industrial Complex; war & empire (USA)

BONAPARTISM: authoritarian rule by populist elected leader; rule by plebiscite and decree; hostility to traditional elites; replaced by new elites; importance of army (France 19thC)

ABSOLUTE MONARCHY: Royal court; privileged aristocracy; established church; standing army; serfdom (17-18thC France)

MERCANTILISM: protection & subsidies for domestic industry; controls on exports; colonies with monopoly access to metropole; navy & empire (France & UK 18thC)

The coloured arrows in the table above show the historical movement beginning in the 18thC as liberal ideas began to have an impact. The policies of the mercantilist state in England and France were gradually reformed as a result of the influence of free trade ideas by theorists and activists such as Adam Smith and Richard Cobden in England and Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat in France , so these countries began to move towards the “Liberty” end of the spectrum (the “left”). This progress was halted by the massive increase in state intervention which began during WW1 and which continued in the post-war period. Free trade and laissez-faire were abandoned and some nations turned to fascism (Italy and Germany) or communism (Russia, China). Thus the direction taken in the 20thC was towards the “Power” end of the spectrum (the “right”). After a brief flirtation with liberal reforms in the 1980s (Thatcher in Britain, Reagan in the US, David Longe in NZ) which shifted some countries to the Liberty end (the left), in the 21stC it seems we are headed back in the opposite direction once again.

[See a larger version of this image.]

If we zoom into the “liberal” end of the political spectrum we can see some more detail about how different kinds of liberals have viewed the power of the state. Thus we can see the following:

CLASSICAL LIBERAL STATE: defence, police, public goods (broadly defined), education [A. Smith, J.S. Mill, F.A. Hayek]

MINARCHIST STATE: defence, police, no other public goods [L. Mises, A. Rand, R. Nozick]

ULTRA-MINARCHIST OR “NIGHT-WATCHMAN” STATE: defence, police, with considerable private or local provision of security [J.B. Say, Frédéric Bastiat, G. de Molinari 2 (older)]

FULLY PRIVATISED OR VOLUNTARIST “STATE”: private production of security, all state activities deregulated, privatised, or abolished [H. Spencer, Gustave de Molinari 1 (younger), Murray Rothbard]

Thus, to return to our distinction between “radical” liberals and “moderate” liberals, we can see that radical liberals have supported the “minarchist” or “ultra-minarchist” or even the “fully privatised” voluntary state; while moderate liberals have supported the “classical” functions of the state as articulated by Adam Smith for example.

“Hyphenated” Liberalism and the Problem of Definition

Posted on by

[Note: This post is part of a series on the History of the Classical Liberal Tradition]

Introduction and the Problem of Definition

“Liberal” and “Liberalism” as concepts have been contested since their first appearance, most probably sometime in the late 18th century, when the adjective “liberal” began to be used to describe an individual’s behaviour or views (“liberal sympathies”) or the nature of institutions (a “liberal system” or “order”), and the early to mid-19th century when the noun “liberalism” began to be used to describe a separate political ideology.

Liberalism has evolved over time to the point where its different versions require modification by an appropriate adjective, to “hyphenate” it if you will, in order to distinguish them from earlier and later versions of themselves. This makes it problematical for the historian to discuss liberalism’s origin, evolution, and meanings; and for the contemporary advocate to clearly explain to others what they mean by these terms.

Some CL thinkers believe the problem of definition has become so confusing that we need to do the following:

1.) to “reclaim” the word “liberal” for our own purposes and discontinue the use of “hyphens” to distinguish one form from another (this is Dan Klein’s approach)

  • This would help us make it clear that there is a distinction between “real” liberals and those who are LINO (liberals in name only), and that this difference is based on significant differences in people’s attitudes about some very fundamental notions, such as property rights, free markets, and the coercive powers of the state

2.) to use the related word “libertarian” which emerged in the 1970s to distinguish it from the other forms of “corrupted” or “false” liberalism;

  • this is especially a problem in the US where “liberal” means the exact opposite of what it once meant;
  • this is less of a problem in the rest of the world where the word “liberal” still has some attachment to the ideas of free markets and small/limited government; but even here “liberal parties” are often what I call “LINO” – liberal in name only as they accept the role of and in fact seek the increase of the welfare state, the regulatory state, and the “nanny state”

3.) to use another term entirely given the intellectual baggage which accompanies the word “liberal”, for example;

  • “individualism” is the preferred term for Steve Davies (IEA), which he uses to distinguish it from anything which gives priority to other things that are deemed to be “social”, such as “socialism”
  • “voluntaryism” used by Carl Watner to refer to a system where voluntary and not coercive relationships exist between individuals; this is based upon the views of the late-19thC voluntaryists like Auberon Herbert
  • “anarcho-capitalism” used by Rothbard and his followers from the late-1960s

Modern “liberalism” has drifted so far from these two streams of liberal thought that it should be regarded as a very different political animal. Something similar has happened to other non-liberal traditions, such as socialism and “labourism”, which have moved a great distance away from what they were when they emerged in the mid and late 19thC. They have incorporated numerous aspects of “liberalism” into their own and created a new kind of “hybrid” political philosophy.

One might say that modern “liberalism” has become more social/socialist and might be better termed “liberal socialism” (socialism with some liberal aspects grafted onto it); while at the same time modern “socialism” has become more “liberal” and might be better termed “socialist liberalism” (liberalism with some socialist aspects grafted onto it).

Thus, socialists today face the same problem liberals do when trying to make sense of all this. What is “real” socialism? What is “real” liberalism? What is the connection between the “ideal” of socialism and what they used to call “actually existing” socialism? And similarly, what is the connection between the “ideal” of liberalism and how these ideas have actually been implemented by liberal parties?

And in the end, does this matter any more when the differences between “liberalism” and “socialism” in the modern era have, for all intents and purposes, practically disappeared?

The Emergence of “Hyphenated” Liberalism

We can distinguish between the different forms CL has taken by the following criteria:

  1. the historical period in which it emerged or became dominant
  2. how consistently or extensively the idea of liberty was applied
  3. whether one has freedom “by right” or “by permission”
  4. different attitudes about the nature of the state and its proper role
  5. different ideas about what the ultimate goal of what politics/liberalism should be
  6. the different value or weight given to the various (three) bundles of freedom (political, economic, social)
  7. different ideas about what a liberal society should or could be

In this post I would like to address the first two of these criteria. I will address the others in later posts.

1.) the historical period in which it emerged or became dominant

  • “proto-liberalism” (before the word “liberal” was used by adherents to describe themselves – Levellers, Commonwealthmen, Whigs)
  • “old” or classical liberalism which emerged in the mid-19thC – especially Richard Cobden, John Stuart Mill, the English Liberal Party (1859), William Gladstone, (PM on and off between 1868-94)
  • modern or “new” liberalism (first wave): emerged in Britain in the late 19thC (1880s and 1890s) with works by L.T. Hobhouse, John A. Hobson, T.H. Green, who argued that state could and should be used as a “positive” influence to increase the “liberty” of people (understood not as the absence of coercion but as an increased capacity to do things)
  • “neo-liberalism” or new liberalism (second wave): it emerged post-1938 as an attempt to revive interest in liberal ideas in a world increasingly dominated by fascism and communism; the idea was to use the state to provide greater welfare services (welfare state) and to regulate the economy to provide more “competition” (an “ordered economy”) , thus it would meld aspects of the welfare-state, greater regulation of the economy, and private ownership of property and the free market; it arose out of the work of the German economist Walter Eucken in 1937 (Ordnung der Wirtschaft (The Order of the Market) (1937)) and a meeting in Paris in 1938, the “Colloque Walter Lippman”, to discuss his recent book An Enquiry into the Principles of the Good Society (1937); this resulted in the formation of organisations such as the Walter Eucken Institut (1954) and the movement known as “Ordo-liberalismus” (ordered liberalism, or liberalism ordered by the state); the Mont Pèlerin Society in (1947) founded by Friedrich Hayek, Frank Knight, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler and Milton Friedman; it should be noted that the Australian Liberal Party was formed at roughly the same time by Robert Menzies (October 1944) and thus needs to be seen as part of this second wave of new or “neo” liberalism.
  • Side Note 1: Robert Menzies gave a series of influential radio addresses in 1942 in which he laid out his ideas about liberalism in preparation for the formation of the new Liberal Party in 1944. It was then that he gave his famous talk on “The Forgotten People” (22 May, 1942), the ordinary tax-payers and citizens, whose interests he wanted the Liberal Party to represent.
  • Side Note 2: It is an interesting question to ask when “liberals” first became aware that they had a coherent worldview which could be applied to many (perhaps all) aspects of how a society could be organised on liberal principles. I think a good marker of this self-awareness is the appearance of one volume treatments of their philosophy which attempted to tie all the various pieces together in an overview of their position. I have drawn up a list of such attempts in order to track this development which spans the nearly 100 years between 1792 (Humboldt) to 1888 (Bruce Smith) . [See my comments in this post: One Volume Surveys of Classical Liberal Thought | Reflections on Liberty and Power.]]

2.) how consistently or extensively the idea of liberty was applied

  • “radical” liberalism: the pure, consistent, radical, or across-the-board application of liberal principles to all aspects of social, political, and economic activity (the Enlightenment (part of Israel’s “radical Enlightenment”), radicals in the American and French revolutions, radicals in early and mid- 19thC (Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hodgskin, Herbert Spencer, Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari); believed that the role of the role should be “ultra-minimal” (Bastiat and others of the “Paris school of political economy) or even non-existent (Spencer, Molinari)

[A side note on other language used to describe this:]

  • cf. Hayek’s concept of “true” vs. “false” individualism could also be applied to liberalism; thus “radical” liberals would see themselves as advocates of “true liberalism” and others (moderates, new liberals) as advocates of “false liberalism”; another German work one could use is “ersatz” or fake (substitute) liberalism
  • cf. Isaiah Berlin’s idea of the difference between “negative” freedom and “positive” freedom could also be applied to the idea of liberalism itself; thus there is “negative” liberalism (where the state abstains (largely) from intervention in peoples’ lives and the economy, and “positive” liberalism (where the state plays a very active role in providing welfare and regulation (health and safety)
  • the historian and economist Walter Grinder uses the term “real” liberalism to describe this group
  • liberalism “proper” vs. “proper liberalism” (Gottfried Dietze): “liberalism proper” which advocates liberty without restriction (libertarianism), while “proper liberalism” advocates limited government which enforces some moral restrictions on behaviour
  • “moderate” liberalism: this describes what most people have historically regarded as “classical liberalism” which emerged after the defeat of Napoleon (1815), the first electoral reform act which allowed many of the middle class in England to vote (1832), the rise of the Anti-Corn Law League (1838) and its success in introducing free trade in England (1846), and the formation of the English “Liberal Party” (1859). Moderate liberals thought the role of the state should be “limited” to national defence, the police, and some public goods (classic statement by Adam Smith – roads, money, post office). Some CLs (like Cobden) thought it should also provide education for children; others accepted the “civilising” and “liberalising”, and “Christianising” influence of the (British) Empire
  • “new” liberalism (also called “social” liberalism): this was a late 19th century phenomenon (Green, Hobhouse, Hobson) which introduced aspects of “socialism” into the CL tradition whereby the state should play a much greater role in maximising “positive” liberty by using legislation/coercion to reduce “harm” (factory legislation, child labour, public health/hygiene) or provide positive benefits to ordinary working people (compulsory public education, health and unemployment insurance), or to do things more “efficiently” or “rationally” than the market and its “profit-makers” (public works – gas, electricity, railroads – as part of “municipal socialism”). It was justified by ideas which were inherent in liberal thinking at the time (the utilitarianism of Bentham, JSM) and the weakness of natural law/rights thinking in the British (Australian) stream of CL thought.

The Scandalous Neglect of Classical Liberal Sociology

Posted on by

Histories of the discipline of sociology usually give short shrift to the classical liberal tradition.1 Sometimes Alexis de Tocqueville gets a mention; Herbert Spencer is dismissed as an anachronism who is barely worth reading anymore; some technical aspects of Pareto’s thought is readily discussed but his “fascist” turn in the 1920s is a cause for worry and a reason to dismiss much of the rest of his work; and of course Max Weber is seen as a pivotal figure in the development of the modern discipline.

However, most of the space in these histories (including dictionaries and encyclopedias like those by Blackwell, Princeton, and Routledge) is devoted to socialist and other statist-inspired authors whose intellectual lineage goes back to Auguste Comte and Karl Marx. This is to get everything backwards in my view, as these “socialist sociologists” came after a lot of significant work in establishing the foundations of the disciple were laid by “liberal sociologists”. I have tried to show this alternative lineage in my anthology of classical liberal class analysis (CLCA) entitled “Plunderers, Parasites, and Plutocrats: An Anthology of Classical Liberal Writing on Class Analysis from Boétie to Buchanan” and in a monograph, a shortened version of which is destined to appeared as a chapter on “Class” for the Routledge Companion to Libertarianism ed. Matt Zwolinski (forthcoming). In that work I sketch out a distinguished line of thinkers stretching back to the Levellers in the 1640s who should be included in any good history of sociological analysis, especially one that is interested in the emergence of institutions like private property, voluntary association, trade between individuals, the emergence of markets and other complex economic institutions, the emergence of the state, slavery and serfdom and others forms of exploitation, war, and so on.

The sticking point for the mainstream approach to the study of sociology is that they cannot get the idea into their heads that voluntary market relations, especially the payment of wages, are NOT necessarily an exploitative relationship, as well as the idea that every action of the state and its officers IS coercive in nature and this has a profound impact on the way people think, behave, and organise themselves.

I have endeavored to rectify this situation by putting online in HTML and facs. PDF formats some of the best work to be found in this classical liberal sociology so it can act as a counterweight to this massive disproportion in the traditional literature. Over the past few months I have worked on the following individuals, especially the “three greats” – Gustave de Molinari, Herbert Spencer, and William Graham Sumner.

A Survey of the Some CL Sociologists who wrote on Class Analysis

See my draft of a monograph on “Libertarian Class Analysis: An Historical Survey” (Sept. 2020) and a shorter version of this “An Introduction to Classical Liberal/Libertarian Class Analysis” ( Oct. 2020). Also the anthology I helped put together on “the alternative tradition” of thinking about class: Social Class and State Power: Exploring an Alternative Radical Tradition, ed. David M. Hart, Gary Chartier, Ross Miller Kenyon, and Roderick T. Long (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), James Mill (1777-1836) and “the sinister interests”

[James Mill (1770-1836)]

Jermey Bentham and James Mill were pioneering early 19th century political sociologists with their analysis of the “sinister interests” who ran the state for their own private benefit and not that of the “general interest.

See my short discussion of “James Mill and Jeremy Bentham on Class” and an anthology of James Mill’s writings on politics “The Political Writings of James Mill: Essays and Reviews on Politics and Society, 1815-1836”.

Charles Comte (1782-1837) and Charles Dunoyer (1786-1862) on the evolution of law, property, markets, and “industrial” societies


[Charles Dunoyer (1786-1862)]

Except for a very few historians and sociologists (the most notable being the Canadian sociologist Robert Leroux) the work of Comte and Dunoyer have been largely forgotten in spite of the great work they did in the late Empire and early Restoration period. I began gathering some of their most interesting essays which they published into journals, Le Censeur (1814-1815) and Le Censeur européen (1817-1819) as part of my bicentennial celebrations of the work. They wrote on the impact of war on economic and political development, the emergence of a new class of productive workers they called “les industrieux”, the nature of dictatorships, and a theory of historical development which they called the “industrial theory of history”.

A future project is to put online their most important work in HTML. It is a scandal that none of their work has been republished in French, let alone translated into English.

Editor’s note: I wrote my PhD on them several decades ago.

I have all their work online but only in facs. PDF format:

  • Bibliography of Charles Comte and his major works: Traité de législation, ou exposition des lois générales suivant lesquelles les peuples prospèrent, dépérissent ou restent stationnaire (1827) 4 vols, and Traité de la propriété, 2 vols. (1834).
  • Bibliography of Charles Dunoyer and his major sociological writings: L’Industrie et la morale considérées dans leurs rapports avec la liberté (1825), Nouveau traité d’économie sociale, ou simple exposition des causes sous l’influence desquelles les hommes parviennent à user de leurs forces avec le plus de LIBERTÉ, c’est-à-dire avec le plus FACILITÉ et de PUISSANCE (1830), 2 vols., and De la liberté du travail, ou simple exposé des conditions dans lesquelles les force humaines s’exercent avec le plus de puissance (1845), 3 vols.

Apart from myself, the following people have written extensively on Comte and Dunoyer:

Two major articles by Éphraïm Harpaz in the 1950s and 1960s, “Le Censeur, Histoire d’un journal libéral,” Revue des sciences humaines (1958) and “Le Censeur européen: histoire d’un journal quotidien,” Revue des sciences humaines (1964), which have been republished as Éphraïm Harpaz, Le Censeur. Le Censeur européen. Histoire d’un Journal libéral et industrialiste (Genève: Slatkine Reprints, 2000).

The other author of note is Robert Leroux, Aux fondements de l’industrialisme : Comte, Dunoyer et la pensée libérale en France (Paris: Editions Hermann, 2015).

Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912) on Political and Economic Evolution


[Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912)]

The Belgian/French political economist Gustave de Molinari is one of the great forgotten CL sociologists of the 19th century. As a young man he wrote some pioneering essays for the Dictionnaire de l’économie politique (1852-53), some 30 in French only 7 of which have been translated into English.

Soon after this he wrote a work in order to explore how Louis Napoleon came to be “Emperor” of a republic. His class analysis in this work was based on the idea of the conflict between the “tax-payers” and the “tax-eaters” and the new coalition formed between traditional ruling elites in the military and the church, the rising economic elites among the state and subsidized and protected agricultural and manufacturing industries, and the bureaucrats who ran the government agencies which regulated the economy: Les Révolutions et le despotisme envisagés au point de vue des intérêts matériels (Revolutions and Despotism seen from the perspective of material interests)(1852) – text.

Towards the end of his long life, after a couple of decades as an economic journalist for the Journal des débuts, he wrote a trilogy of great sociological works exploring economic and political evolution, and the impact of the French revolution and war on these evolutionary process: L’évolution économique du XIXe siècle: théorie du progrès (Economic Evolution in the 19th Century: A Theory of Progress) (1880) text, L’évolution politique et la révolution (Political Evolution and the Revolution) (1884) text; Grandeur et decadence de la guerre (The Rise and Fall of War) (1898) text.

He then wrote a final fourth volume which summarised his life’s work on this topic: Économie de l’histoire: Théorie de l’Évolution (The Economics of History: A Theory of Evolution) (1908) text.

It is scandalous that only one of these works has been republished – Grandeur et decadence de la guerre (The Rise and Fall of War) (1898 – by the Institute Coppet, and none translated into English.

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) and the evolution of “industrial” and militant” types of society


[Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)]

The work of the English radical individualist is well known but not well understood. I have put online his major work on sociology The Principles of Sociology (1874-1896): vol.1; vol.2; vol.3; with a combined table of contents of the set to help researchers more easily explore his work.

William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) on Forgotten Men and Women, and Plutocrats


[William Graham Sumner (1840-1910)]

England had Herbert Spencer (1820-1903); France had Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912); and America had William Graham Sumner (1840-1910). All three did pioneering work in the emerging discipline of “sociology”, were radical classical liberals (libertarians), and were active in popularizing their ideas via journalism. Sumner was a professor of sociology at Yale University who wrote on free trade and protection, sound money and banking, and was an outspoken member of the American Anti-Imperialist League.

His work on classical liberal class analysis should also be mentioned, where he championed the interests of “The Forgotten Man and Woman” who paid the taxes which made it possible for the various vested interest groups, both large (plutocrats and party bosses) and small (those who sought government jobs), to enjoy their privileged position. Sumner also wrote several works against the theory and practice of socialism. In his view the great clash of the future would be between socialists from below and plutocrats from above, with the “forgotten” man and woman caught in the middle. I have put online the four volumes of his collected essays, his major treatise on sociology, Folkways (1906), and several other works:

  1. See for example the massive and comprehensive (weighing in at 5 vols. and over 5,000 pages) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Edited by George Ritzer (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007); The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Second Edition. Neil J. Smelser and Richard Swedberg editors. (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006); and the International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. Edited by Jens Beckert and Milan Zafirovski (London and New York: Routledge, 2006, 2011). [↩]

The Classical Liberal Tradition: A 400 Year History of Ideas and Movements. An Introductory Reading List

Posted on by

[Delacroix’s “Liberty leading the People on the Barricade” (1830)]

Date: 20 May, 2021
Revised: 22 Apr. 2022

[Note: This post is part of a series on the History of the Classical Liberal Tradition]

An Essential Reference Work

An accessible and very comprehensive introduction to CL /Libertarianism can be found in the Cato Institute’s The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, ed. Ronald Hamowy (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008. A Project of the Cato Institute). It contains dozens of short entries on key individuals, policies, intellectual movements, and ideas and concepts. It is available online free of charge here. The abbreviation EoL is used below for this reference.

I. Begin with an Overview

I suggest you begin with a couple of overviews :

On the state of liberty in the world today, see The Human Freedom Index 2021. A Global Measurement of Personal, Civil, and Economic Freedom. Ian Vásquez, Fred McMahon, Ryan Murphy, and Guillermina Sutter Schneider (Cato Institute and Fraser Institute, 2021). Online – Human Freedom Index: 2021 | Cato Institute and PDF. Note: the Introduction to the volume is well worth reading. Also, that Australia has been dropping in the ranks.

Then browse around the articles in the EoL according to your whims and tastes. I have reorganized the entries into the following categories to make browsing a bit easier (see my webpage with links to the EoL site here:

  • People
  • Ideas
  • Movements and Ideas: both Liberal and Anti-Liberal
  • Historical Events and Documents
  • Policy Issues (specific)
  • Other General Topics of Interest

II. Then Delve into some Primary Sources

You should read some of the original texts for yourself and not just depend on what others have said about them. Here is my personal selection of some of “The Great Books of Liberty”.

I believe that liberalism can be divided into three main types according to how consistent it is in applying the principles of individual liberty, self-ownership, and non-coercion to the areas of social/individual liberty, political liberty, and economic liberty. Thus there is “radical” liberalism, “moderate” liberalism, and “new” or “neo” liberalism (or what I would call partial or inconsistent liberalism). My own preference is the radical liberalism of Frédéric Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, and Gustave de Molinari.

A good sample of classical liberal work is E. K. Bramsted and K. J. Melhuish, Western Liberalism: A History in Documents from Locke to Croce (New York: Longman, 1978).

For a broader sampling of classical liberal writing on various topics, see my compilation of 600 Quotations about Liberty and Power: The Collected Quotations from the Online Library of Liberty (2004-2018), the table of contents of which (with links to the full quotes and my commentary) can be found on my website here.

In my view I think that there are 5 important periods in the development of classical liberalism / libertarianism:

  1. its “pre-history” during the classical, medieval, and reformation/renaissance periods when some of the key ideas evolved but they were not brought together into a coherent “worldview”
  2. the 17th century, particularly in England with the emergence of the Levellers and other supporters of Parliament against the growing power of the monarchy, during the Civil Wars and Revolution and then the Exclusion Crisis leading up to the Revolution of 1688
  3. the 18th century Enlightenment in France, Scotland, England, and North America which culminated in the American and French Revolutions and the creation of the first limited, constitutional, “liberal” government in the world
  4. the 19th century during which “classical liberalism” emerged and the most comprehensive liberal reforms (political, economic, and social) were introduced
  5. the decline and “long sleep” of CL during the 1st three quarters of the 20th century before its re-emergence in the 1970s and 1980s with the modern “libertarian” movement in the U.S. and elsewhere.

See below for a more detailed list and description of some of the key figures.

Modern Works on CL Theory

But enough of history! What are modern day CLs and Libertarians saying? See the following recent works to get an idea:

  1. Peter J. Boettke, The Struggle For A Better World (Arlington, Virginia: Mercatus Center, 2021). Online at The Struggle for a Better World | Mercatus Center: F. A. Hayek Program.
  2. Visions of Liberty. Edited by Aaron Ross Power and Paul Matzko (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2020) Online
  3. George F. Will, The Conservative Sensibility (Hachette Books, 2019).
  4. Deirdre McCloskey, Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for All (Yale University Press, 2019).
  5. Richard Ebeling, For a New Liberalism (American Institute for Economic Research, 2019).
  6. Eamonn Butler, School of Thought: 101 Classical Liberals (IEA, 2019).
  7. Eric Mack, Libertarianism (Key Concepts in Political Theory. Polity, 2018).
  8. [Brennan] The Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism. Edited by: Jason Brennan, Bas van der Vossen, and David Schmidtz (New York : Routledge, 2018).
  9. [Zywicki] Research Handbook on Austrian Law and Economics. Edited by Todd J. Zywicki and Peter J. Boettke (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2017).
  10. [Boettke, Coyne, and Storr] Interdisciplinary Studies of the Market Order. New Applications of Market Process Theory. Edited by Peter J. Boettke, Christopher J. Coyne, and Virgil Henry Storr (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017).
  11. Steven Horwitz, Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
  12. Edward P. Stringham, Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life (Oxford University Press, 2015).
  13. Peter T. Leeson, Anarchy Unbound: Why Self-governance Works Better than You Think (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
  14. George H. Smith, The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
  15. Chandran Kukathas, The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

And for an Australian perspective:

Chris Berg, The Libertarian Alternative (Melbourne University Press, 2016).

David Kemp’s trilogy (Melbourne University Press) on the the “moderate” or “compromised” liberalism which emerged in Australia:
1. The Land of Dreams: How Australians Won Their Freedom, 1788–1860 (2018)
2. A Free Country: Australia’s Search for Utopia, 1861-1901 (2019).
3. A Liberal State: How Australians Chose Liberalism over Socialism 1926–1966 (2021)

David Llewellyn , AUSTRALIA FELIX: Jeremy Bentham and Australian colonial democracy (PhD. thesis, University of Melbourne, July 2016).

My own rather pessimistic views can be found in this blog post:

  • “The State of the Libertarian Movement after 50 Years (1970-2020): Some Observations” Reflections on Liberty and Power (25 March, 2021) here.

Some older but still value works include:

  1. Alan Ryan, The Making of Modern Liberalism (Princeton University Press, 2012).
  2. José G. Merquior, Liberalism: Old and New (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991).
  3. Stephen Macedo, Liberal Virtues. Citizenship, Virtue, and Community in Liberal Constitutionalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).
  4. Anthony Arblaster, The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984).
  5. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Revised edition. (New York: Collier Macmillan, 1978).
  6. David L. Norton, Personal Destinies (Princeton University Press, 1976).
  7. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).

Other Recommended Works

Works by the Great CLs

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859), in John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVIII – Essays on Politics and Society Part I, ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by Alexander Brady (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977).

F.A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism,” The University of Chicago Law Review (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420; reprinted in Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (University of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 178-194.

Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy 3 vols. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973-79)

My list of “One Volume Surveys of Classical Liberal Thought”:

First wave:

  • Wilhelm von Humboldt, Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen (Ideas presented in an Attempt to determine the Limits of State Activity) (1792, 1854)
  • Benjamin Constant, Principes de politique, applicables à tous les gouvernemens représentatifs (The Principles of Politics which are applicable to all Representative Governments) (1815)
  • Gustave de Molinari, Les Soirées de la rue Saint-lazare (Evenings on Saint Lazarus Street) (1849)
  • Herbert Spencer, Social Statics (1851)
  • JS Mill, On Liberty (1859)
  • Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Ethics (1879)
  • Bruce Smith, Liberty and Liberalism (1888)

Second wave (20th century before the modern libertarian movement emerged)

  • Ludwig von Mises, Liberalismus (Liberalism) (1927)
  • Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1960)
  • Milton Friedman (with the assistance of Rose D. Friedman), Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago, 1962)

Third wave (which coincided with the emergence of the modern libertarian movement):

  • John Hospers, Libertarianism – A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow (Los Angeles: Nash, 1971)
  • David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (1973)
  • Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1973)
  • Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch, 1980; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980)

Three Aussie Radical Liberals

William Edward Hearn, Plutology or the Theory of the Efforts to Satisfy Human Wants (Melbourne: George Robertson, 1863; London: Macmillan and Co., 1864). Online.

Bruce Smith, Liberty and Liberalism: A Protest against the growing Tendency toward undue Interference by the State, with Individual Liberty, Private Enterprise and the Rights of Property (1887; reprinted 2005 by the CIS) Bio of Arthur Bruce Smith (1851-1937) and the book online

Bob Howard et al. who wrote the Workers Party Platform (1975) Online.

On CL natural rights theory:

  1. Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl, Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1991).
  2. Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl, Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics [hereinafter NOL] (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005), especially chapters 4 and 11; and
  3. Douglas J. Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen, The Perfectionist Turn: From Metanorms to Metaethics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016).
  4. Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl, The Realist Turn: Repositioning Liberalism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).

Works on history and the history of ideas:

Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Enlarged Edition (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992). 1st ed. 1967. Especially chap. III “Power and Liberty: A Theory of Politics,” pp. 55-93.

Bernard Bailyn, “The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation,” in S. Kurtz and J. Hutson, eds., Essays on the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973), pp. 26–27.

Jerome Blum, The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe (Princeton University Press, 1978).

Joseph Hamburger, James Mill and the Art of Revolution (Yale: Yale University Press, 1963).

Joseph Hamburger, Intellectuals in Politics: John Stuart Mill and the Philosophic Radicals (Yale: Yale University Press, 1965).

Theodore S. Hamerow, The Birth of a New Europe: State and Society in the Nineteenth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983).

Jonathan Israel, Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellectual History of the French Revolution from The Rights of Man to Robespierre (Princeton University Press, 2014).

Jonathan Israel, The Expanding Blaze: How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775-1848 (Princeton University Press, 2017).

Jonathan Israel, The Enlightenment That Failed: Ideas, Revolution, and Democratic Defeat, 1748-1830 (Oxford University Press, 2019).

Robert Kelley, The Transatlantic Persuasion: The Liberal-Democratic Mind in the Age of Gladstone (New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1969).

McCloskey’s “Bourgeois trilogy” on bourgeois virtues, dignity, and equality:

  • Deirdre N. McCloskey, The Bourgeois Virtues : Ethics for an Age of Commerce (University of Chicago Press, 2006).
  • Deirdre N. McCloskey, Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
  • Deirdre N. McCloskey, Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World (University of Chicago Press, 2016).

Robert Nisbet, “The Social Impact of the Revolution.” In America’s Continuing Revolution: An Act of Conservation (Washington: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1975).

Robert R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: The Challenge (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1959).

Robert R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: The Struggle (Princeton University Press, 1964).

[Pocock] Three British Revolutions: 1641, 1688, 1776. Edited by J.G.A. Pocock (Princeton University Press, 1980).

Murrary N. Rothbard, “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty” Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought (Spring 1965, no. 1), pp. 4-22;

Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Revised edition. (New York: Collier Macmillan, 1978), “Preface. The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism,” pp. 1-19. Online at Mises Wire.

The Five important Periods in the Development of Classical Liberalism / Libertarianism

[With links to the relevant articles in the EoL and my website.]

The Pre-History of Liberalism: Precursors and Influences

Its “pre-history” during the classical, medieval, and reformation/renaissance periods when some of the key ideas evolved but they were not brought together into a coherent “worldview”:

  • Greek ideas about democracy; the independent self-governing polis; the existence of a higher moral law, and justice
  • Roman ideas about natural law; property law; the problem of the tyrant king/emperor; tyrannicide: Stoicism and Epicurianism; Cicero – Stoicism; Epicureanism; Cicero (106-43 BC); Natural Law
  • Christian ideas about the individual soul; the higher moral law; the early church as a voluntary, self-governing association; the abbey/monastery as an early form of the “firm”; decentralised decision-making and governance; overlapping jurisdictions / legal polycentism
  • the Medieval Period: Magna Carta – Magna Carta; the Free Cities and their Charters; Scholastics – School of Salamanca – Scholastics/School of Salamanca
  • the Renaissance Republicanism; the independent republican city and its citizens; self-governance and political independence from the central power (monarchy, or pope); rule by a pro-trade, commercial oligarchy; opposition to tyrants/tyranny: Classical Republicanism – Republicanism, Classical; The Dutch Republic – Dutch Republic
  • the French Humanist magistrate Étienne de La Boétie (1530-1563) EoL who asked why a minority of ruthless “princes” and their allies could plunder and abuse the majority of taxpaying and obedient people without using (too much) violence. His answer was that most people willingly entered a state of “voluntary servitude”. See my Boétie page and my edition of his “Speech on Voluntary Servitude” (c. 1550s) here.

(1) 1640s: the English Civil War and Revolution (proto-liberalism)

The 17th century, particularly in England, we see the emergence of the Levellers and other supporters of Parliament against the growing power of the monarchy, during the Civil Wars and Revolution and then the Exclusion Crisis leading up to the Revolution of 1688.

  • English Common Law: Edward Coke – Common Law;
  • The English Civil Wars/Revolution of the 1640s: the Levellers, John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn, John Milton. One of my favourites from among the emerging “proto-liberals” of the 1640s was the Leveller Richard Overton (1631–1664) who wrote one of the greatest and impassioned defenses of “self-propriety” (self-ownership) ever written, An Arrow against all Tyrants and Tyranny (Oct. 1646) text. See the EoL entry on the Levellers here and my “Leveller Tracts and Pamphlets Project” here. See also English Civil Wars; Milton, John (1608-1674)
  • the Glorious Revolution of 1688: Algernon Sidney, John Locke, Whigs – Glorious Revolution; Sidney, Algernon (1623-1683); Locke, John (1632-1704)
  • the “big name” of 17th century liberals is of course the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) EoL whose Two Treatises of Government (written 1680–1683, published in 1689) was the definitive statement on the right to property and the need for all governments to have the consent of the governed. See Book II, chap. V “Of Property” here.

(2) 1750s-1790s: the American and French Revolutions (early liberalism, the “liberal “ Enlightenment)

The 18th century Enlightenment in France, Scotland, England, and North America which culminated in the American and French Revolutions and the creation of the first limited, constitutional, “liberal” government in the world.

  • in general on the 18thC Enlightenment in Europe and North America – Enlightenment.
  • the French Enlightenment: the possibilities to include here are enormous, but one of my favourites is Voltaire (1694-1778) EoL who waged a one-man war against all forms of intolerance, especially by the Church. His witty overview of the injustices of his own day can be found in his “philosophic tale” Candide (1759) here; and his critique of the Church and church doctrine in his Philosophic Dictionary (1764). Among the many entries, see “Inquisition” and “Intolerance”; and “Toleration” and “Torture” See also my main Voltaire page. See also the entries on Physiocracy; Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat de; Diderot, Denis (1713-1784)
  • the Scottish Enlightenment: it is hard to go past Adam Smith (1723-1790) EoL as the best representative of the Scottish Enlightenment. His critique of government interventionism in the economy (known as “Mercantilism” in his day EoL is unsurpassed (except for perhaps Frédéric Bastiat 75 years later). The section in his Wealth of Nations (1776) on “the invisible hand” is classic – found in Book IV, Chapter II “Of restraints upon the importation from foreign countries of such goods as can be produced at home” here. See also Adam Ferguson, David Hume – Ferguson, Adam (1723-1816); Hume, David (1711-1776).
  • key figures in the English Enlightenment were the 18thC Commonwealthmen, Cato’s Letters, Trenchard and Gordon – Cato’s Letters
  • the American Enlightenment: the American Declaration of Independence (1776) is perhaps the greatest statement of CL political principles ever written. The draft was penned by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). See the EoL entry “Declaration of Independence” and on Jefferson. Although not an American by birth the English born Thomas Paine (1737-1809) EoL was active in England, America, and then France. His two-part Rights of Man (1791, 1792) was and remains a stirring defence of individual liberty against the claims of the state (especially monarchies) and those who opposed natural rights rights (like Edmund Burke). See especially Part II. Chapter I. Of Society and Civilisation here; Chapter II. Of the Origin of the Present Old Governments; and Chapter III. Of the Old and New Systems of Government.
  • The American Revolution: Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison – American Revolution; Paine, Thomas (1737-1809); Jefferson, Thomas (1743-1826); Madison, James (1750-1836)
  • The French Revolution: Lafayette, Condorcet, the Girondins, Destutt de Tracy, Madame de Stael – French Revolution; Condorcet, Marquis de (1748-1794); Tracy, Destutt de (1754-1836);

(3) The long 19th century 1815-1914 (classical liberalism)

During the 19th century “classical liberalism” emerged and the most comprehensive liberal reforms (political, economic, and social) were introduced:

  • Classical Liberalism (the French School): Jean-Baptiste Say, Benjamin Constant, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari – Say, Jean-Baptiste (1767-1832); Constant, Benjamin (1767-1830); Comte, Charles (1782-1887); Dunoyer, Charles (1786-1862); Bastiat, Frédéric (1801-1850); Molinari, Gustave de (1819-1912). My favorite is the French politician and economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) was the greatest economic journalist who has ever lived and during his relatively short life he produced some of the wittiest and most profound critiques of tariff protection and socialism ever written by a CL. See his “Petition of the Candlemakers” (1845) ES1.7 at OLL as an example of the former, and The Law (1850) at OLL as an example of the latter. See the EoL entry on Bastiat and my main Bastiat page.
  • Classical Liberalism (the English School): Philosophic Radicals, Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, Classical Economics, John Stuart Mill – Liberalism, Classical; Philosophic Radicals; Utilitarianism; Bentham, Jeremy (1748-1832); Classical Economics; Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873). See in particular the English politician theorists John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) EoL and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) EoL who represent the split which existed within CL between the advocates of utilitarianism and those of natural rights. Both wanted to limit the powers of the state but JSM was much more moderate, while Spencer verged on the anarchistic. See my Mill page (to come) and Spencer page. See Mill’s Chap. IV. “Of the limits to the authority of society over the individual” in On Liberty (1859) here; and Spencer’s Chap. XIX “The Right to Ignore the State” in Social Statics (1851) here.
  • Australian CL: for an Australian flavor we have a professor of economics at the University of Melbourne, William Hearn (1826-1888), who was influenced by Bastiat and the NSW politician Bruce Smith (1851-1937) who had been influenced by Spencer. Neither, unfortunately, are mentioned in the EoL but see my Hearn page and Smith page. See Hearn’s chapter on the proper functions of the state, Chapter XXIII. “Of the Impediments Presented to Industry by Government” in Plutology (1863) here; and Bruce Smith’s chapter IX “Practical Application of the Principles of True Liberalism” in Liberty and Liberalism (1887) here.

Key issues and movements of CL reform in the 19thC:

(4) The post-WW2 Liberal Renaissance and the Rise of “Libertarianism”

There was decline and “long sleep” of CL during the 1st three quarters of the 20th century before its re-emergence in the 1970s and 1980s with the modern “libertarian” movement in the U.S. and elsewhere. Some groups of note include:

The Austrian School (inter-war years): Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek – Economics, Austrian School of; Mises, Ludwig von (1881-1972); Hayek, Friedrich A. (1889-1992).

The Post-World War 2 Liberal Renaissance:

The Austrian School of Economics (2nd generation):

Other Economic Schools:

The modern American Libertarian movement:

The Australia Workers Party (1975): John Singleton and Bob Howard wrote and promoted The Australian “Workers Party Platform” (1975) – the most consistent application of the “non-aggression principle” by any political party ever. Here in HTML and facs. PDF. This is emblazoned at the bottom of every page: “No man or group of men has the right to initiate the use of force, fraud or coercion against another man or group of men”. See the EoL entry on the “Nonaggression Principle”.

Bastiat’s Anti-socialist Pamphlets, or “Mister Bastiat’s Little Pamphlets”

Posted on by

One of the most prolific and persuasive critics of socialism in the late 1840s was the economists and free trade campaigner Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850). Between May 1848 and July 1850 he wrote a series of over a dozen anti-socialist pamphlets, or what the Guillaumin publishing firm marketed in their Catalog as the “Petits pamphlets de M. Bastiat” (Mister Bastiat’s Little Pamphlets), which included several for which Bastiat has become justly famous such as “The State” (June and Sept. 1848), “The Law” (July 1850), and “What is Seen and What is Not Seen” (July 1850). The pamphlets sold well for Guillaumin and they were reprinted several times and even marketed as a set which could be purchased for 7 fr. for the complete set of 12. Some originally appeared in journals such as the JDE, while others were written as stand alone pamphlets.

In two of his Election “Manifestos” which he circulated among the voters in his home district of Les Landes during the election campaign in May 1849,1 which he duly won, he identified the particular socialists whose ideas he was attacking in each one of them. Bastiat also wrote other anti-socialist essays and articles which are also included in the list below.

The “Small Pamphlets” included the following titles. The order of publication is provided by his editor Prosper Paillottet in the Oeuvres complètes , vol. 4, p. 274. We have added the price for each pamphlet from an advertisement we found in one of the Guillaumin books {Note_ 1 franc = 100 centimes]. The Paris Chamber of Commerce estimated that average wage per day for an ordinary worker in Paris at the time was about 3 fr. 80 c.,2 so the cost for a worker who purchased the pamphlet Damn Money! and the State for 40 c. was nearly 11% of their daily wage.

Bastiat’s series of anti-socialist pamphlets and articles (the links are to the works in French and to the English translation at the OLL where available):

1847:

  1. even before the February Revolution he had addressed the growing threat of socialism in essays like “Du Communisme,” Libre-Échange (27 juin, 1847) which he published in his free trade magazine. In this he criticized the socialist ideas of Philippe Buchez who edited the workers’ magazine L’Atelier (the Workshop) and became the first President of the Republic [ HTML and facs. PDF ]

1848:

  1. the first article he wrote after the Feb. Revolution was “Funestes illusions” (Disastrous Illusions) JDE (mars, 1848) in which he urged the people to abolish all political and economic privileges and not to replace the old group of “plunderers” with a new group as the socialists were urging them to do [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  2. “Propriété et loi” (Property and Law) (JDE, May 1848) [40c.] – a defence of property rights against the criticism of socialists like Louis Blanc and others [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  3. “Justice et fraternité” (Justice and Fraternity) (JDE, June 1848) – a response to the socialist Pierre Leroux [ HTML and facs.PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  4. “Individualisme et fraternité” (Individualism and Fraternity) (c. June 1848) – an unpublished paper also written to refute the socialist’s claim (esp. by Louis Blanc) that free markets led to ruinous individualism and competition while socialism led to fraternity and brotherhood for the workers. [ HTML ] [English at OLL ] This is a a topic he would return to in several chapters of Economic Harmonies such as chap. X “Concurrence” (Competition) [ HTML ] and XXI “Solidarité” (Solidarity) [ HTML ]
  5. “L’État” (June, Sept. 1848 and early 1849) [40 c.] : there were three versions of this famous essay – the 1st in June before the June Days riots in Paris which was short and written for the ordinary worker in the streets [English at OLL ]; the 2nd longer version was written for a high-brow magazine in Sept. 1848); and the 3rd longest version was written as a pamphlet and gave a detailed critique of Ledru-Rollin’s socialist (Montagnard) party platform. [ HTML and PDF] [English at OLL ].
  6. “Propriété et spoliation” (Property and Plunder) (JDD, July 1848) [40 c.] – a defence of property, especially of land (and the charging of rent), against the criticism of Victor Considerant [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]

1849:

  1. “Protectionnisme et communisme. Lettre à M. Thiers” (Protectionism and Communism. A Letter to M. Thiers) (Jan. 1849) [35 c.]- addressed to the conservative politician Adolphe Thiers and the protectionist Mimerel committee pointing our the similarities between conservative and socialist policies, namely their use of state coercion to give privileges to some members of society at the expence of others [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  2. “Capitale et rente” (Capital and Rent) (Feb. 1849) [35 c.] – in opposition to the criticisms of Proudhon and others on the legitimacy of rent. [ HTML and facs. PDF ]
  3. Maudit l’argent! (Damn Money) (April 1849) – in opposition to socialist misconceptions about money, banking, and debt. [ HTML and facs. PDF ]
  4. “Propriété, Communauté” (Private and Communal/Community Property) (chap. VIII of Harmonies Économiques 1850) (written mid 1849 and published in the first edition of EH in Jan. 1850) – Bastiat attempts to answer the socialist critique of private property by showing that a system based on private property actually increases the amount of “communal” property to the enormous benefit of all members of the community. [ HTML ]
  5. “Le capital” (Capital), Almanach Républicain pour 1849 (1849) – against Proudhon and Blanc HTML.

1850

  1. Baccalauréate et socialisme (The Baccalaureat and Socialism) (early 1850) [60 c.] – written to oppose the teaching of interventionist and statist ideas (“socialism”) in government schools by means of the teaching of the Latin language which was supported by conservatives like Adolphe Thiers [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  2. Gratuité du crédit. Discussion entre M. Fr. Bastiat et M. Proudhon (Free Credit. A Discussion between M. Fr. Bastiat and M. Proudhon) (1850) 1 fr. 75 c.] – an extended debate with Proudhon over the legitimacy of profit, interest and rent. [ HTML and facs. PDF ]
  3. Spoliation et Loi (Plunder and Law) (1850) [40 c.] – written to oppose the ideas of Louis Blanc, the Luxembourg Commission, and the National Workshops program [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  4. La Loi (The Law) (June 1850) [60 c.] – one of the last things Bastiat wrote before his death; a lengthy critique of the ideas of Louis Blanc and the 18th century predecessors of socialist ideas, most notably Rousseau and Robespierre [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  5. “Liberté, Égalité” (Liberty and Equality) (1850) – a draft of a chapter for the Harmonies Économies which was never published. He attempts to explain how the liberal understanding of “equality” differs from that of the socialists’. [ HTML ] [English at OLL ]

In the last months of his life he wrote on more general economic matters which also covered the errors of all kinds of interventionist policies, including of course, socialist intervention:

  1. Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas, ou l’Économie politique en une leçon (What is Seen and What is Not Seen, or Political Economy in One Lesson (1850) [60 c.] – [ HTML and facs. PDF ] [English at OLL ]
  2. his unfinished treatise on economic theory Harmonies Économiques (Economic Harmonies) : the first half published in his lifetime (10 chaps in early 1850) in facs. PDF ; and a partly “completed” posthumous edition in 1851 (with an additional 15 chapters or sketches of chaps, and an outline of a much larger future work on economic “harmony” and “disharmony”) in HTML and facs. PDF
  1. “Statement of Electoral Principles in April 1849” OC7.65 and “Statement of Electoral Principles in 1849. To MM. Tonnelier, etc.,” OC1. English at [CW1, pp. 390-95] [↩]
  2. Chambre de Commerce de Paris [Horace Say], Statistique de l’Industrie a Paris résultant de l’enquête. Faite par la Chambre de commerce pour les années 1847-1848 (Paris: Guillaumin, 1851). “Chap. XXII. 13e Groupe – Imprimerie, Gravure, Papeterie,” pp. 187-94. [↩]