Date: 22 Apr. 2022

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

This is an outline/overview of my Lecture/Seminar and extended paper on the history of the Classical Liberal tradition. It consists of the following sections:

1. Introduction: What is Liberalism?
2. CL and the State
3. Liberal Ideas
4. Key Individuals, Texts, and Movements for Reform
5. A Balance Sheet of Liberal Successes and Failures
6. Strategies to achieve Liberal Reforms

See other posts relevant to this topic.

1. Introduction: What is Liberalism?

1. The Problem of Definition:
   1. where CL lies on the political spectrum
      1. Is Liberalism “Left” or “Right”?
      2. Radical/Revolutionary (the emancipation of others) or Conservative (preserving existing liberties)?
2. The Multi-Dimensional Nature of Liberalism
   1. political liberties
   2. economic liberties
   3. social (individual) liberties
   4. legal liberties
3. The Three Main Kinds of Liberalism
   1. Radical Liberalism
   2. Moderate Liberalism
   3. “New” Liberalism
4. Other Hyphenated Liberalisms
   1. proto-liberalism
   2. neo-liberalism
   3. false liberalism
   4. state liberalism
   5. LINO

2. Liberalism and the State

1. How big/powerful should the State be?
   1. Limited government liberalism
      1. Minarchist State
      2. Ultra-Minarchist State
      3. Fully Voluntarist “State”
   2. big government liberalism: welfare-state, regulatory state
2. The Problem of creating a Limited State
   1. via (piecemeal, democratic) reform or
   2. revolution (violence)
3. The Problem of Keeping the State Limited
   1. public opinion / free press
   2. written constitution and bill of rights (policed by courts)
   3. a vigilant and consistent “liberal” political party
4. The Problem of turning a big “predatory” State into a limited “protective” State
   1. The Problem of Obedience: Why people obey the State?
   2. persuading people a limited state / CL is a good thing
      1. the ideal of liberal justice for all
      2. the exaggeration of market failure
      3. the neglect of political failure
      4. public ignorance of basic economic principles
   3. overcoming the powerful groups who live off the state
      1. The Problem of Vested Interests and Rent-Seeking
      2. Class Rule and Class Struggle
      3. “crony-ism” (institutionalized privilege-seeking)
         1. “crony capitalism” – industry, commerce, banking, farming
         2. “crony democracy” (voters, politicians)
         3. “crony bureaucracy” and public sector unions

3. Liberal Ideas

1. What Liberals were AGAINST
   1. arbitrary political power,
   2. arbitrary religious power
   3. slavery & serfdom
   4. war & conscription
   5. restrictions on who could stand for election and vote
   6. heavy and arbitrary taxation
   7. central banks, fiat money, and national debt
   8. tariffs & other trade restrictions
   9. subsidies & monopolies to favoured industries
   10. empire & colonies
2. What Liberals were FOR
   1. highest order ends: individual and social flourishing
   2. other high order ends: life, liberty, property, justice
   3. liberty as a “bundle” of more specific freedoms:
      1. political liberty
      2. economic liberty
      3. individual/social liberty
      4. legal liberty
   4. Twelve Key Concepts of Liberty
      1. Natural Law and Natural Rights
      2. Individual Liberty
      3. Private Property
      4. Free Markets
      5. Free Trade
      6. Idea of Spontaneous Order
      7. Consent of the Governed
      8. Limited Government
      9. Rule of Law
      10. Freedom of Speech & Association (special case of Religion)
      11. Peace
      12. Progress and Human Flourishing
   5. Liberal “Virtues”
      1. people should “live liberally” (i.e. by “liberal virtues”) as individuals, members of a family, as neighbors, and as citizens
         1. Being responsible for one’s own actions
         2. Respecting the equal rights of others
         3. Refusing to initiate the use of coercion against others
         4. Being open to new ideas & behaviour
         5. Showing compassion towards others
         6. Being tolerant of others
         7. Wanting liberal justice for all
3. The “Liberal Vision”
   1. CLs have had inspiring visions of what a free society might look like and what its benefits to humanity would be
   2. this vision disappeared towards the end of the 19thC which led to young people looking elsewhere for inspiration (socialism, nationalism, fascism)
   3. Buchanan, Ebeling, and Boettke have called for CLs to rediscover their “liberal soul”, its “beautiful philosophy”, and the “passion for justice”
   4. some examples of inspiring CL “visionaries”
      1. Condorcet (1794): the ‘Tenth Epoch” of human progress towards unending liberty and prosperity
      2. Richard Cobden’s “dream” of free trade in everything (1846)
      3. Frédéric Bastiat’s (1847) speeches put into the mouths of “Mr. Utopian” and “Pancho” on urging people “to do as you please”
      4. Gustave de Molinari’s (1849) “Spartacus speech” urging modern day slaves to rise up and throw off their chains
      5. J.S. Mill’s (1859) vision of people engaging in “different experiments in living”
      6. Friedrich Hayek (1949): “a liberal Utopia”, “a truly liberal radicalism”, of interlocking spontaneous orders
      7. Ayn Rand’s (1957) vision of the anarchist refuge of “Galt’s Gulch”
      8. Robert Nozick (1974): the CL minimal state provides a “framework for Utopias” to complete against each other
      9. James Buchanan’s (2000) vision of “the soul” of CL which imagined a social order in which everyone can be free and where “no person exerts power over another”.
      10. Chandran Kukathas’ (2003) idea of the “liberal archipelago” of multiple jurisdictions in a sea of mutual toleration (2003)
      11. Peter Boettke’s (2021) radical vision of a cosmopolitan, emancipatory, and compassionate liberal society which is a “workable utopia”

4. Key Individuals, Texts, and Movements for Reform

[This section is necessarily brief. See the main section for more information.]

1. The Pre-history of Liberalism (proto-liberalism)
2. The Four Main Periods of Liberal Activity/Reform
   1. 1640-80s: the English Civil War/Revolution
   2. 1750s-1790s: the American and French Revolutions
   3. the long liberal 19th century 1815-1914
   4. the post-WW2 liberal renaissance
3. Other Key Elements for Each of the Main Periods
   1. key thinkers and their texts
   2. “movers and shakers”: important politicians and movement organizers and agitators
   3. key political and legal documents
4. A specific example of this: the Free Trade movement
   1. Key theorists: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776); J.B. Say, Treatise of Political Economy (1803)
   2. Activists and organisations: Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League (1838), Frédéric Bastiat and the French Association for Free Trade (1847)
   3. Document/Legislation: the Repeal of the Corn Laws (1846); the Anglo-French Free Trade Treaty (1860)

5. A Balance Sheet of Liberal Successes and Failures

1. The Achievements of Liberalism
   1. The Great Emancipation
      1. 1from coerced labour
      2. from the arbitrary authority of kings and princes
      3. from “cruel & unusual punishment”
      4. from violations of property rights
      5. from the arbitrary power of the Church
      6. from restrictions and bans on associating with others on a voluntary basis
      7. from restrictions on trade and industrial activity
      8. from restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and capital
      9. from strict limits on who could participate in political activity
      10. from war and conscription into the army
   2. The Great Enrichment
      1. spread of CL ideas led to changes in the way people interacted with other
         1. respect for the life, liberty, and property of others
         2. the dignity of productive and useful labour, trading with others
      2. greater productivity and innovation led to explosion of wealth creation
      3. longer life expectancy, lower infant morality (and childbirth deaths of mothers), reduction of disease, less demanding physical labour (mechanization), and greater home comforts for ordinary working people (piped water, sewers, heating, light)
2. The Failures of Liberalism
   1. The emancipation project was left incomplete
      1. the inconsistent application of liberal principles
      2. complacency
      3. religious arrogance
   2. CL political and economic theory suffered from a series of weaknesses
      1. viewing “democracy” as an end in itself rather than as a means
      2. the weakening of belief in natural rights
      3. exaggerating the extent of and misunderstanding the reasons for “market failure”
      4. ignoring the problem of “government failure”
      5. not being able to explain the cause of the business cycle and the economic depressions which were the result
   3. Many CLs were politically naive
      1. their faith in the benevolence and omniscience of the state and its officials
      2. their willingness to let the new democratic state be “captured” by vested interests (both old and new)
      3. their faith in the ability and willingness of the “middling class” to make democracy work
   4. The inability to explain basic economic ideas simply to the ordinary person
   5. The “Loss” of the Intellectuals to Socialism
   6. CLs lost their “Vision” of what a free society should be like
3. What still needs to be done?

6. Strategies to Achieve Liberal Reforms

1. the Aim is to change the Climate of Opinion and then Policies
2. Understanding the Theory and History of successful Ideological and Political Change
3. Getting the Main Building Blocks in Place: the Structure of Production of Ideas, their Dissemination, and their Practical Application
   1. Scholarship and Higher Learning
      1. innovative scholars who develop the “high theory”
      2. other scholars who take the theory further and disseminate it to their students
   2. Entrepreneurs and Investors in Ideas who establish research centres, think tanks, and outreach organisations
   3. Outreach Organisations which make the ideas available/accessible to students, teachers, intellectuals, and other interested members of the public
   4. the “Dark Side” of Liberal Reform (getting our hands dirty with “politics”)
      1. Lobby Groups and Policy Study Centres which influence politicians, legislators, senior bureaucrats, journalists
      2. Organisations/Parities which educate and organise ordinary citizens/voters by means of the “popularization” of liberal ideas (especially economic ideas)
4. The main Threats to Liberty and “What is to be done”
   1. Identification of the current threats (15+)
   2. the Prioritisation of their danger to Liberty
   3. taking steps to Eliminate or Neutralise them using the “building blocks” outlined above
   4. using liberal means to achieve liberal ends

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

Introduction

Following the rise to power of Louis Napoleon, who declared himself Emperor Napoléon III in 1852, the radical French CL and political economist Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912) gave a lecture at the Musée royale de l’industrie belge in October 1852 on “Les Révolutions et le despotisme envisagés au point de vue des intérêts matériel” (Revolutions and despotism considered from the point of view of material interests). In this lecture he declared that it was the function of economists to be “les teneurs de livres de la politique” (the bookkeepers of politics) who should periodically draw up a balance sheet of the “profits and losses” or the “costs and benefits” of political activity. In his case it was the impact of the French Revolution in 1789 and another revolution on February 1848. [For the details of his political “bookkeeping” see my essay “Gustave de Molinari on Economists as the Bookkeepers of Politics: ‘Unfortunately, No One Listens To Economists’.” (23 April, 2020). Online.]

I want to do much the same here, but this time to draw up a list of the costs and benefits of a political and economic ideology, or rather the “successes” and “failures” of Classical Liberalism (henceforth “CL”). My conclusion is that the very considerable “benefits” or achievements of CL have not been recognized as they should have been, and that modern day CLs and libertarians have not adequately recognized and discussed the very obvious costs or “failures” of their tradition. What they can do to address the latter is a matter still to be resolved.

The Achievements of Liberalism

The achievements of CL have been enormous since CL first began challenging the Old Order of the monarchical/absolutist state (Throne) and the established church (Altar) in the 17th century, with most of its successes coming in the late 18th century (the American and French revolutions) and their aftermath in the 19th century.

These achievements can be summarized as

1. the Great Emancipation, and
2. the Great Enrichment

The Great Emancipation

Richard Ebeling has called this movement the CL “crusades” for liberty and Peter Boettke “the emancipation project”. This freed millions of people from the bondage (Boettke’s word) of the Throne (the monarchy), the Altar (the established church), the Sword (the military), Slavery and Serfdom (the large land and plantation owners), the Plough (pre-industrial agriculture), and the Mercantile interests.

See the following posts for more information:

1. “Classical Liberalism as a Revolutionary Ideology of Emancipation” (13 Oct. 2021) here
2. “Classical Liberalism as the Philosophy of Emancipation II: The “True Radical Liberalism” of Peter Boettke” (17 Oct. 2021) here

My list of “emancipations” is a compilation and expansion of Ebeling’s and Boettke’s lists. As a result of CL reforms and revolutions much of western Europe, America, and the English colonies were emancipated:

1. from coerced labour such as slavery and serfdom (abolition)
2. from the arbitrary authority of kings and princes (constitutional limits to state power, the rule of law, freedom of speech, low taxation)
3. from “cruel & unusual punishment”, such as torture, the death penalty, arrest without court order, imprisonment without trial (trial by jury, independent judiciary, habeas corpus, punishments which “fit the crime”)
4. from violations of property rights (legal protection of property, enforcement of contracts)
5. from the arbitrary power of the Church (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from paying compulsory tithes)
6. from restrictions and bans on associating with others on a voluntary basis (marriage and divorce laws, private clubs and associations (“civil society”))
7. from restrictions on trade and industrial activity (free trade and deregulation, freedom to enter and practice a profession or trade)
8. from restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and capital (freedom to move within the country, freedom to emigrate, free trade)
9. from strict limits on who could participate in political activity such as voting and standing for election (democracy, freedom of association, freedom of speech)
10. from war and conscription into the army (peace, low taxes and debt, laws of warfare, international arbitration)

Note: There were many aspects of life in the 19th century which were never regulated by the state in any systematic manner, such as private activities such as prostitution, or the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol and drugs. It would only be in the 20th century, when liberal ideas and institutions were severely weakened that the state began to prohibit, sometimes ruthlessly, so-called “victimless crimes” like prostitution, alcohol, and drugs.

The Great Enrichment

This is Deidre McCloskey’s term and she has documented how the great emancipation led directly to an explosion of wealth creation (market driven innovation, greater productivity of free production and free trade) which in turn led to longer life expectancy, lower infant morality (and childbirth deaths of mothers), reduction of disease, less demanding physical labour (mechanization), and greater home comforts for the first time in human history, especially for ordinary working people (piped water, sewers, heating, light).

For a summary of her findings see this article:

Deirdre McCloskey, “The Great Enrichment” Discourse (July 13, 2020 here

and note the accompanying table showing the extraordinary increase in wealth which 1.4 to 2% annual growth can achieve:

The argument is that this modest annual growth was made possible for the first time in human history, and was only possible at all, because of CL reforms in ideas, behaviour, and institutions.

It is important to note that an important pre-condition for the Great Enrichment” was a change in thinking about the merits of productive labour. Traditional elites considered productive labour undertaken by themselves to be demeaning to one’s social status, thus one needed servants, serfs, and slaves to undertake the actual hard work to create wealth. For most of human history the ideal elites sought to copy was that of the warrior or the aristocratic land owner with the time and leisure and wealth to pursue “higher” ends. The sea change which made the Great Enrichment possible was for more and more people to see that productive labour (including running a business, engaging in trade, selling goods and services to ordinary consumers) was a “noble” activity in itself and that all impediments to such activity should be removed. This applied not just to others but also to oneself and one’s children, that it was no shame to “go into trade” as it was called. For example, a key indicator of how these ideas about labour had changed during the course of the 19th century in Britain was the number of “beer barons” who were awarded knighthoods and earldoms by the British monarchy.

The Failures of CL

Although these emancipations and enrichment completely transformed European and American society and laid the foundation for our modern world they were left incomplete and unfinished, and, as a result, other ideologies less friendly, even very hostile to CL, have become dominant (socialism, welfare statism, fascism/populism).

1.) The emancipation project was left incomplete with some groups left out or ignored (women, gays, indigenous people). This was due to a number of factors:

1. the inconsistent application of liberal principles by believing that not all human beings had equal “rights” to life, liberty and property, or that if they had these rights they were already “protected” by their “guardians”, whether they be their husbands, fathers, or more “advanced” white men;
2. complacency on the part of many CLs who believed that the continuation of the liberal project was “inevitable” as it was part of an unstoppable evolutionary process, or
3. their religious arrogance since they believed that they had undertaken a Christian “civilizing mission” to bring God and liberal order to the colonies.

The exclusion of these groups opened the door for other political and economic ideologies to step into the gap left by the CLs and to offer an alternative route to their eventual emancipation by means of much greater state intervention.

2.) CL political and economic theory suffered from a series of weaknesses which made it vulnerable to criticism and being replaced by other ideologies which seemed to be able to offer explanations and solutions to current problems. These other “solutions” usually involved much greater state regulation and control of both private life and the economy. Some of the theoretical problems within CL theory included:

1. viewing “democracy” as an end in itself rather than as a means to achieve a higher end (such as removing the power and privileges of the old elites, making politicians and government agents accountable “to the people”, placing strict limits on the power of the state; instead, democracy came to be seen as an end in itself which was applicable to larger and larger areas of human activity, such as economics, thus giving rise to the idea of “social democracy”
2. the weakening of belief in natural rights as the foundation of liberty (which had radical implications) and its replacement by utilitarianism which was a far weaker defence of liberty in that it allowed many exceptions based upon bureaucratic and political calculations of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” principle
3. exaggerating the extent of and misunderstanding the reasons for “market failure” which led to the belief that the government (regulation) should be used to rectify these failures; the older “presumption of liberty” as the guiding principle of government policy was replaced with “the presumption of government intervention” to solve problems
4. ignoring the problem of “government failure” by overestimating the ability of the state to regulate economic matters; the reasons for this failure of government would not be fully appreciated until the work of Mises and Hayek in the 1920s and 1930s (the problem of rational economic calculation under socialism, the problem of knowledge), and Buchanan and Tullock in the 1960s (the self-interested behaviour of politicians and bureaucrats)
5. not being able to explain the cause of the business cycle and the economic depressions which were the result which hurt the working class and seriously disrupted industry and commerce; again, this problem would not be fully understood until Austrian economists (Hayek and Mises) developed their theories of the connection between the expansion of the money supply by governments, the “malinvestments” which this caused, resulting in a series of inevitable “corrections” and the repricing of goods.

3.) Many CLs were politically naive in thinking that coercion by the state was an acceptable means of pursuing liberal ends. The “new liberals” especially came to see the state not as a “necessary evil” but as a “positive good” for the spread of emancipation and enrichment. This “political naïveté” took several forms, such as

1. their faith in the benevolence and omniscience of the state and its officials; CLs recognized that “private predation” undertaken by powerful private interests such as privileged landowners, manufacturers, merchants, and bankers and financiers had been a serious problem and was therefore the focus of many early CL reforms (abolition of serfdom, tariff protection, subsidies to favored industries), but they did not also recognize that “public predation” by the new democratic state itself was becoming a serious problem as well. To put this problem in the language of Public Choice (Buchanan and Tullock) it was naive of CLs to think that those who “make the rules of the game” (the members of Parliament) should also “referee the game”, and even “play in the game”. They too had their own vested interests which included the desire to wield power, to enjoy the “perks of office”, and to be re-elected.
2. their willingness to let the new democratic state be “captured” by vested interests (both old and new); the new democratic state provided a mechanism for powerful political and economic elites to continue their predatory behaviour under cover of “national development” or “national security”; some of these elites were new, such as the newly wealthy and ambitious leaders of industry and commerce who sought the reintroduction of tariffs in the late 19th century, or supported the arms race as it provided large contracts for ship building among other things; others were members of the old elite who came from traditionally privileged groups who had benefited from the old order, such as wealthy landowning families who traditionally staffed the courts, the military, and the colonial administration; a third group were made of intellectuals who staffed the new bureaucracies which administered the expanded activities of the state in areas such as public works, transport, education, health, and welfare.
3. their faith in the ability and willingness of the “middling class” to make democracy work; the argument was that an educated and morally upright middle class would make sure that the new democratic state would remain very limited in its powers, that it would only ensure that “the rules of the game” (the protection of life, liberty, and property) were adhered to and that the state would do nothing else; related to this idea was the notion that as the “working class” became more affluent they would come to share the values of the liberal middle class and would do likewise; what became apparent was that all social and economic classes wanted to use the power of the state to grant themselves privileges at the expence of others; this is what Bastiat described as the definition of the modern state:

> “L’Etat, c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde” (The State is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else) “The State” (JDD, 25 Sept. 1848) (CW2, p. 97)

4.) The inability to explain basic economic ideas simply to the ordinary person: this has been a long standing problem for CLs going right back to its origins; this is because many economic insights are not self-evident as they require a longer term perspective to appreciate (that a small amount of growth p.a. can lead to a doubling of income in a generation); that the results or consequences of government intervention cannot be seen immediately (Bastiat’s notion of “the unseen”) but emerge over time (such as shortages), whereas a government subsidy, price control, or welfare payments can be seen immediately (Bastiat’s “the seen”); that some incentives (or disincentives) can be rather subtle, as with Smith’s idea that the self-interest of a producer might lead as though an “invisible hand” were at work, to improve the well-being of society as a whole. So long as people acted on moral principles (that it was wrong to seek and get government handouts or privileges) then they did not need to know the finer points of economic theory to realize that government intervention was not a good thing; however, as this moral belief waned, they needed to understand the other, more technical and theoretical reasons to avoid government intervention, and this understanding they did and still do not have.

5.) The “Loss” of the Intellectuals to Socialism: the group which might have persuaded the ordinary person of the moral and economic benefits of free markets were the “intellectuals”, however as the 19th century wore on the intellectual class increasingly moved away from CL and adopted socialist, nationalist, or other statist beliefs instead. This movement away from CL was noted by writers such as Julian Benda, La Trahison des Clercs (The Treason of the Intellectuals or The Betrayal by the Intellectuals) (1927), Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), and Friedrich A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism” (1949). Why the CL movement “lost” the intellectual class to socialism and statism in the late 19th century is an important question which modern day CLs have to find an answer to and a way to reverse the situation. A common response is that the uncertainties of making a living in a free market where one’s work is only rewarded if consumers value your work enough to voluntarily pay for it, drove intellectuals into the apparently more certain and predictable arms of the state which provided them with secure jobs in the administration or the state funded academy. Another explanation is that intellectuals adopted the old aristocratic disdain for “productive labour” and did not want “to dirty their hands” with commerce. Why this was the case is unclear.

Of course, another response might be that CL is wrong both morally and economically speaking, that the “intellectual class” recognized this, and were therefore right to turn their backs on it.

[See Richard Ebeling, “Can Capitalism Survive? 80 Years After Schumpeter’s Answer” The Future of Freedom Foundation (Apr. 19, 2022) Online .]

6.) CLs lost their “Vision” of what a free society should be like: CLs lost their “vision” of what a fully free society might look like and why this was desirable, and thus “lost” the moral high ground to the socialists and statists. Their loss of vision made their ideology less attractive to the young, who found an alternate and more attractive and inspiring vision in socialism/Marxism, nationalism, and fascism. One of the reasons why radical liberals in the late 18th and early 19th century were able to put forward an inspiring vision of what emancipation might achieve, and thus attract many people to the CL cause, was their passionate sense of justice, or rather their hatred of the injustice which they could see all around them. This passion came out in their polemical writing, best exemplified by Thomas Paine whose “Common Sense” (1776) and “The Rights of Man” (1791) inspired CLs on both sides of the Atlantic. Who in the late 19th century was writing similar inspiring essays to attract a new general of young people to CL? Very few – perhaps only the aging members of the last generation of “old liberals” like Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912) and Auberon Herbert (1838-1906).

This loss of “vision” was pointed out by Friedrich Hayek, James Buchanan, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick in the second half of the 20th century, and again by Richard Ebeling and Peter Boettke in the 21st.

On CL Visions of the Future Free Society see:

1. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future I” (27 August, 2021) here
2. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future II: The Contribution of Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912)” (29 Aug. 2021) here
3. “Classical Liberal Visions of the Future III: Liberal Experiments, Frameworks, and Archipelagos” (11 Oct. 2021) here
4. “Hayek on a Liberal Utopia” (11 Sept. 2021) here

What still needs to be done?

I will reserve discussion of this matter to a future post. In the meantime see my thoughts on the problems we face and some strategies to solve them:

• “Strategies to Achieve a Free Society” (24 March, 2022). Online and also here.

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

Some people can see the logic in applying political, moral, and economic principles consistently and avoiding contradictions which make being consistent impossible. Thus for example, if you really do believe that profit, interest, and rent are immoral (as many early socialists did) because they are “unearned” by the capitalist / factory owner, the banker or money lender, and the land or property owner, and which is paid at the expense of those who do in fact “work” (or “labour”), then this is immoral and a form of exploitation which must be stopped.

If you really do believe, as another example, that the payment of wages to workers by a profit-making factory owner or employer is also a form of exploitation since the worker never receives the “full value” of what their labour produces, the difference going to the owner in the form of “profit”, then this too must be stopped because exploitation is immoral.

If you really do believe that “capitalism” is riven by internal contradictions that lead inevitably to periodic economic recessions and depressions, that the workers’ standard of living is doomed to gradually decline through unchecked population growth and the decline in their wage rates, that the exploitation of nature for profit leads inevitably to environmental destruction, pollution, and global warming, that “overproduction” of consumer goods leads to rampant and degrading “consumerism”, that “globalisation” of markets creates a race to the bottom as countries with cheap labour drive out of business those countries where wage rates are much higher, if you believe these things then logic tells you that you have to oppose them because they are immoral and damaging to the welfare of ordinary working people and possibly will also lead to the end of the world. Hence the passion held by supporters of “Extinction Rebellion”.

On other other hand, radical liberals / libertarians believe none of these things are true but they do have a similar desire to see their principles put into practice in a logical and consistent manner, namely the idea that individuals by their nature as human beings have rights to life, liberty, and property which pre-date the creation of the state and which trump (no pun intended) any claim the state may have to take away or infringe upon these rights; that the non-aggression principle should apply in all social and economic relations between people; and that when states, groups, or other individuals use aggression to interfere with these natural rights they engage in the unjust exploitation of others which is immoral and thus should be brought to an end as soon as possible. [I will not go into these claims in any detail here. See other sections of this collection of posts for more information.]

Thus it would seem that there is and can not be any “third way” or compromise, at least in terms of theory (but perhaps not in terms of actual policies), between the logically consistent socialist/communist and the logically consistent radical liberal / libertarian. Either the payment of wages by a profit-seeking factory owner is exploitation or it is not; likewise, either the seizure and confiscation of a person’s justly acquired property by the state is unjust or it is not. However, this is exactly what those who are less attracted to logical consistency from both sides want to believe is possible. People from both the “liberal side” and the “socialist side” have thought that there must be a way to avoid the “problems” (as they see them) of the logical extremes of both ends of the political spectrum [See the post on this.]
Thus we have seen attempts at creating a “Third Way” for liberals in the emergence of “New Liberalism” in the late 19thC and “neo-liberalism” after WW2, both of which tried to “soften” the extremes of laissez-faire free market capitalism, the appearance of large “monopoly” firms, and rampant “anti-social” individualism with the injection of just enough “socialism” to remove its rough edges.

We have also seen socialist and Labour Parties do something very similar, with Tony Blair’s Third Way for the British Labour Party in the late 1990s (or “New Labour” as his campaign slogan called it); the pragmatists and “economic realists” in the Australian Labor Party under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in the 1980s, who wanted to remove the extreme measure of traditional socialist calls for the “nationalisation” of industry by the state and to allow a sizable dollop of “privatisation”, private ownership, free market pricing, and competition.

In spite of the logical contradictions this attempt to find a “Third Way” inevitably produces, this has not stopped political parties from pushing these theoretical problems to one side and to nevertheless try to create what I have called a “smorgasbord” of policies which have elements of both liberalism and socialism in them. [See my post on “The Success of Liberal Ideas has led to the Decline of Radical Liberal Parties” (6 Sept. 2021) ) where I discuss the problems this has caused in creating parties which are LINO (“Liberal in Name Only”) and SINO (“Socialist in Name Only”).]

If we too just push aside the theoretical contradictions this creates and just focus on the policies we can see that the result is not a good one. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) has called these policies “middle of the road” policies, by which he means both parties try to avoid being a consistent and radical liberal party on the right hand side of the road, as well as trying to avoid being a consistent and radical socialist party on the left hand side of the road, and thus follow a “middle of the road” policy which is supposed to be a bit of each but works out being neither one nor the other. For a variety of reasons I cannot go into here , Mises believes the steady pursuit of “middle of the road” policies will end up inevitably taking the party which follows them to the left hand side of the road. See his The Middle of the Road Leads to Socialism) given to the University Club of New York, April 18, 1950 and which was later published in his book Planning for Freedom (1952) [available online .]

Thus, as I see it, the problem boils down to the following problems:

1. “new” liberalism or neo-liberalism is not consistent in its adherence to and application of liberalism and thus becomes LINO (“Liberalism in Name Only”)
2. the same is true for “New Labour” or what we might call “neo-socialism” which is not consistent in its adherence to and application of socialism and thus becomes SINO (“Socialism in Name Only”)
3. and attempts to follow a “middle of the road” policy between these two political and economic ideologies will drive both LINOs and SINOs eventually towards a more interventionist “centrist” position, as they bid for voter support in elections by offering them more and more “handouts” and subsidies to special interests, as the desire to win and stay ion office overpowers any ideological conviction they once might have had as “liberal” or “socialist” parties.

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

[See also another post on “Plotting Liberty: The Multi-Dimensionality of Classical Liberalism and the Need for a New ‘Left-Right’ Political Spectrum” (17 April, 2022) here.]

Another aspect to consider is the multi-dimensional nature of liberalism. The one dimensional political spectrum with two end points of total liberty at one end and total state power is better than the traditional “left-right” spectrum which hides this important feature, but it too has its limitations. As Bastiat and others recognized in the mid-19th century, liberty could take many forms or dimensions, and that “true liberty” was the sum of all these different forms freedom might take. To simplify matters, one could limit the analysis to just three dimensions which would include “political” freedoms (like freedom of speech, assembly, rule of law, constitutional limits on the power of the state, representative government, and so on), “social” freedoms (such as all kinds of voluntary and cooperative activity, freedom of religion, marriage, drug-use, behaviour, dress), and of course “economic” freedoms (such as free trade, choosing one’s career, property rights, free markets, freedom/protection of contracts, free market pricing).

More specifically:

• political/legal freedoms
• economic freedoms
• social/individual freedoms

(One might have “legal freedoms” as the 4th dimension, but I have kept the list to three dimensions to make it easier to visualize.)

Political/Legal Freedoms:

• freedom of speech and assembly (religion)
• constitutional limits on the power of the state
• representative government
• the rule of (just) law
• equality under the law
• protection of private property and contracts
• right to emigrate/immigrate

Economic Freedoms:

• free markets
• laissez-faire or minimal intervention/regulation
• right to choose and enter a trade/profession
• the division of labour
• free trade & exchange
• free movement of capital and people

Social/individual Freedoms

• all kinds of voluntary and cooperative activity (family, civil society)
• marriage
• drug-use (“capitalist acts between consenting adults” (Nozick))
• religion
• toleration of different behaviour and dress

Thus, according to this way of looking at liberalism, one could say that “radical” liberalism embraces all three dimensions of freedom to their maximum extent; “moderate” liberalism might be strong on two out of the three dimensions, but allow for considerable restriction in one of the dimensions (such as paternalistic controls on private behavior, or tax-payer funding for unemployment benefits, or state compulsory education). Finally, what I have called “ersatz” liberalism (“false” liberalism, or LINO liberalism, i.e. liberalism in name only) would be that form of liberalism where the restrictions in all three dimensions of liberalism are so extensive that it has been transformed into some other kind of political philosophy.

The question then becomes how to determine the boundary line between “radical” and “moderate” liberalism (which I consider to be forms of “true” liberalism) from the “false” liberalism. This is a mater of personal judgement perhaps.

The various forms of “ersatz” liberalism which have emerged since the late 19th century are in many ways like a political smorgasbord, where politicians take a little bit of economic freedom, a pinch of social freedom, and combine it with a dollop of “political” freedom (“democracy”) and call this mixed plate “liberalism”. But is this “liberalism” in any meaningful sense of the term? How is it to be distinguished from welfare state socialism with some aspects of liberalism (usually social and political freedoms but not so much economic ones)?

I think the boundary between the two kinds of liberalism is much easier to see from a natural rights perspective than from a utilitarian one. Utilitarian calculations of what the state should or should not do can become very blurred with no sharp and clear ways of determining where the beginning and end points are. The exceptions to the NAP can be rather numerous and open-ended which results in a blurring of the political spectrum where there is no longer a clear distinction between non-coercive voluntary activity and state- sanctioned or state initiated coercion. A natural rights perspective brings the nature of state actions into much sharper focus as the use of coercion (or its threat) against individuals (life, liberty, property) I think is a much more objective thing (though not absolute as threats can be disguised or hidden or not always immediately apparent). But the radical liberal who wants to see the NAP applied as broadly as possible (absolutely and with no exceptions??) makes no distinction between coercive actions by the state or its representatives and other private individuals. All such acts, by whomsoever committed, are immoral, criminal, and should be banned, without exception. This perhaps is the sharp distinction which separates “radical” liberals and all other kinds of liberals. All other kinds of liberals, from “moderate” to “new” or “ersatz” allow (even require) varying degrees of state coercion as part of their political philosophy. The “radical” liberal does not do so. The issue for those “liberals” who do not want to go down the path of the “radicals” is to decide upon a non-arbitrary place to stop state coercion. How far does this path can one go and still remain a “liberal” in any meaningful sense of the word?

This also raises the question of “practicability”, is such an absolute form of liberalism even possible? or does necessity and practicability require coercive actions by the state from time to time (the moderate position), or always and constantly (the conservative and ersatz liberal) if society is to be prevented from falling apart (the conservative) or if society is to be a more just and fair one (the ersatz liberal and the socialist)?

Note: See also my previous posts on “hyphenated liberalism”:

1. “ ‘Hyphenated’ Liberalism and the Problem of Definition” (9 Aug. 2021) here
2. “Hyphenated Liberalism Part II: Utopian, Democratic, Revolutionary, and State Liberalism” (12 Oct. 2021) here
3. “The Conservative and Revolutionary Faces of Classical Liberalism” (11 Aug. 2021) here

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

The Multi-Dimensional Nature of Liberty

The full richness and complexity of the nature of Liberty is not well appreciated by most observers, especially mainstream media journalists and political scientists.

In other posts I have explored the relationship between the main components of a CL or Libertarian theory of Liberty which I will not repeat in detail here, only to assert that it is “multi-dimensional” in nature, consisting of at least three, and possibly four different threads or streams:

1. political liberty
2. economic liberty
3. individual/personal/social liberty
4. and sometimes legal liberty (if I don’t want to conflate this with the category of “political” liberty)

(See these posts for more information.)

In this post on “The Key Ideas of Classical Liberalism: Foundations, Processes, Liberties” I discuss the meaning of this “concept map” of CL which I created:

Note: I have an updated version of these mind maps from April 2022 which is not yet online.

One can do the same for other political ideologies, determining what their position is on what they consider to be the proper power of the state, how much this power should be used to intervene in the affairs of the ordinary person, and how this might impinge upon the three kinds of liberty outlined above. This comparison can be done “qualitatively” (or “relatively”) by means of a “spectrum” (in one dimension) or a “political compass” or “matrix” (in 2 dimensions) which shows visually whether a society is more or less free in very general terms; or it can be done “qualitatively” by giving a score (say out of 10 or 100) for each of these liberties (perhaps in 2 or 3 dimensions) and then ranking the different regimes according to how much or how little freedom their citizens are able to exercise as measured by these scores.

I will discuss here some of the attempts to measure how much freedom a society “enjoys” (or “allows” its citizens to enjoy) and how successful I think these measurements are. Most are “qualitative” or “relative” in nature, such as

1. the traditional Left-Right political spectrum with its 1 dimension
2. my own “new political spectrum” between Liberty and Power (also 1 dimensional)
3. David Nolan’s “Libertarian Spectrum” (1969) in 2 dimensions – Left (“liberal”) vs. Right (conservative) and Libertarian vs. Authoritarian
4. a “simplified” Nolan chart in two dimensions and four quadrants – “Social” freedom and “economic” freedom
5. the “Political Compass” which also uses “quadrants” and 2 dimensions, this time “Left” vs. “Right” and “Authoritarian” vs. “Libertarian.”
6. David Boaz’s “Four-Way Matrix” in 2 dimensions – “social liberalism” and “economic conservatism” – which results in 4 quadrants of Populist, Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian
7. my own version of the “Four-Way Political Matrix” revised for Australia politics – economic and social freedom – with the 4 quadrants of Conservative, Libertarian, Populist, and Socialist

My last example is a much more ambitious attempt at the “quantification” of the amount of “Human Freedom” by a team from Cato and the Fraser Institute. In their Human Freedom Index they try to quantify the amount of liberty (from 0-10) enjoyed in 165 countries across 82 different “indicators” of personal and economic liberty (thus using 2 dimensions). The results are then ranked by combining the individual scores of “personal liberty” and “economic liberty” into a “Human Freedom” total. One of the very interesting measurements they also provide is to show how different countries have risen or fallen in the rankings over time, giving the index a dynamic aspect which other political spectra or compasses do not.

The Traditional “Left-Right” Political Spectrum (1 dimension)

What is wrong with this picture?

This is the most common depiction of the Left-Right Political Spectrum with “communism” and “socialism” on the far “Left” and Fascism on the far “Right”. However, there are many serious problems with depicting in this fashion the different political ideologies and the regimes they give rise to. For example,

• Libertarianism, almost as an afterthought, is placed next to “Fascism” as they are both thought to be be “right-wing”, which is absurd
• there are extreme forms of state power at both ends of spectrum; this implies that CL or “freedom” is somewhere in the “Moderate” centre, and denies CL’s revolutionary and emancipatory heritage

Side Note: since this spectrum was drawn up for an American audience,

• the colours are “wrong”, since the colour red traditionally has been associated with socialism
• there is no “Classical Liberal” position; “Conservatism” is the modern American equivalent
• It uses the American meaning of “Liberal” to mean “left of centre” or “social democracy”, i.e. Democrat

The Origin of the Terms “Left” and “Right”

I have often asked myself this question: When the Revolution comes, on what side of the Chamber/House should the Libertarians sit? On the Left or the Right, or somewhere in between, or should they refuse to take a seat entirely? (for those of you who are anarchists or “voluntaryists”) Of course, part of the answer depends on who is already sitting in the Chamber and who controls the government and for whose benefit.

The terminology we use today to distinguish “left” and “right” along a political spectrum has its origins in the French Revolution (as many things do). Those who sat on the Left side of the Speaker in the Chamber opposed the status quo of “throne and altar”, the monarchy (plus the aristocracy and the military) and the established Catholic Church, who sat on the “Right” of the Speaker. Those on the Left supported a range of alternative ideas ranging from crackpot socialism and Rousseau-ianism, to English-style constitutional monarchism, to moderate American style republicanism, and advocates of laissez-faire and the free market. There was a complication to this practice which introduced a vertical component to the seating arrangement. The most radical of the socialists sat as a group high up on the back benches on the Left and so were naturally called “The Mountain” or the “Montagnards” (or Mountain People). Hence my new term of “up-wing” to add to “left-wing” and “right-wing”.

Frédéric Bastiat didn’t know where to sit in the Chamber in 1848

Here is another example of the problematical seating arrangements libertarians face when they get elected. When classical liberalism became a more potent force in the 1840s in England and France and yet another revolution broke in February 1848 the radical classical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat was elected to the Constituent Assembly to represent his home Département of Les Landes and had to sit in the middle of the Chamber, voting sometimes with the Right to oppose high taxation, government funded make work schemes for the unemployed, and redistribution proposed by the socialist Left; and sometimes with the Left to oppose restrictions of free speech, association (trade unions), and high taxation on basic food supported by the conservative Right. Thus, it would appear Bastiat’s ideas were neither completely of the “Right” nor of the “Left” and this left him in a rather lonely position in a Chamber of 900 elected representatives.

This problem of the etiquette of the proper seating arrangements in the Chamber speaks to a broader issue of what exactly is “libertarianism” or “radical classical liberalism” (I use the terms interchangeably)?

• Is it a leftwing political position (radical in the sense of challenging the status quo) or a rightwing one (in the sense of wanting to “conserve” some or all of the status quo)?
• What are libertarians trying to change and what are they trying to conserve?
• What happens if some of their views are considered to be “leftwing” while others are considered to be “rightwing”?
• Have the ideas of these liberals/libertarians changed over time (or have societies changed)?
• Is the tradition “leftwing-rightwing” political spectrum broad enough to include libertarians, or do we need another dimension or “wing” (“up-wing” or “up-mountain” for example) do do them justice?

A new “Left-Right” Political Spectrum (1 dimension)

Introduction

What I want to argue here is that the traditional one dimensional left-right political spectrum is completely inadequate both because,

1.) it ignores the complexities of political views and policies in general; most political ideologies are a “bundle” of views of political, social, economic, and other matters, which are linked together more or less consistently ; this is true for the “major” political traditions like “socialism” and CL [see my essays on “What Classical Liberals were For” (13 Aug. 2021) hereand “The Key Ideas of CL” here]. For example, a country might be quite “liberal” when it comes to economics but be very poor when it comes to social and political freedoms (Singapore); alternatively, a country might have considerable political and social freedoms but have high taxes to fund a welfare state (thus reducing its economic freedoms). Even within liberalism itself, I believe we can identify three different sub-traditions (radical, moderate, and “new” liberalism) each of which has a different view of the what the power of the state should be.

2.) in particular it leaves no place for the libertarian position (what I consider to be the heir of the CLT, especially the version I call “radical liberalism”) since libertarians hold some views which are regarded as “rightwing” or “conservative” (low taxes, small government, gun ownership, rule of law), as well as those that are better described as “leftwing” (freedom of speech, association, sexual preference), and those that don’t fit in at all (anti-war, drug laissez-faire, political orneriness / general hostility to everything the government does).

3.) in addition, there are different kinds of “liberty” which need to be taken into account when making these distinctions, both between radically different political ideologies (such as Fascism, Communism, Bonapartism, Welfare State “Liberalism”, Classical Liberalism); as well as within the CL tradition itself (between radical liberals, moderate liberals, and “new” or “LINO” liberals).

Related to this is how the power of the state is exercised. The use of power can be categorised by how extensive its use is, how ruthlessly it is exercised, and by whom it is exercised (and against whom). Regarding extent, power/coercion can be applied comprehensively to every single aspect of our lives (Communism) or only partially in that some things are left relatively free but others are not (modern “Liberal Democracies”). Regarding its ruthlessness, the state can imprison and kill millions of dissenting individuals (Stalinism, Maoism), or governments can threaten, fine, or imprison dissenters but rarely kills them (modern “Liberal Democracies”). Regarding for whom/ on whom, power can be exercised by a particular class (such as aristocrats, crony capitalists, slave owners), or by politicians elected by “the people”.

To help understand these different types of power it is necessary to examine how they impact the different aspects of our lives and “liberties”, or in other words how they impinge upon our political/legal freedoms, economic freedoms, and social/individual freedoms.

My new “Left-Right” Spectrum of State power

Let me offer here my own revised one-dimension “political spectrum” which attempts to resolve some of these problems by using the two end points of the spectrum as “Liberty” and “Power” instead of “Left” and “Right”.

My “ranking” is based upon a “qualitative” judgment on my part about how “interventionist” or “coercive” different political regimes and the ideology upon which they were based were . It would be useful to “quantify” this like the Cato/Fraser Institute’s do in their “Human Freedom Index” for countries today, but it is beyond my ability at the moment.

On the “Left” (I do this deliberately) there is complete “Liberty” and represent the position which challenges the status quo) and complete “Power” (or Statism) on the right which represents the position which wants to defend the status quo or to create a new one).

The types of states/regimes which I list here include, at the CL “Liberty” end of the spectrum:

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]

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)]

CLASSICAL LIBERAL or MINARCHIST STATE: defence, police, some public goods (broadly defined), and sometimes education [A. Smith, J.S. Mill, F.A. Hayek, L. Mises, A. Rand, R. Nozick]

In contrast, the types of states/regimes which I list at the “Power” end of the spectrum:

COMMUNISM:
fully planned economy; state controlled society; rule by a 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)

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)

I find this quite useful as a way of showing how societies have changed over time regarding how free or unfree they are. For example as a result of the “liberal revolutions” of the 18th and 19th centuries American and European societies moved from being less free to more free – thus moving from “right” (statist) to “left” (liberal)., via Absolute Monarchy to Mercantilism to various forms of Limited Government such as Constitutional Monarchy (UK) or Republicanism (US).

In the late 19th and 20th centuries the movement was in the other direction towards increasing state power, so from a Monarchist state (limited government) to Bonapartism, to an increasingly Welfare State and then a variety of state forms such as Fascism, Communism, the Welfare/Warfare state.

The key question for modern-day CLs is whether the direction of the past century can be reversed so that we can resume the movement (progress) towards liberty which took place in the late 18th and 19th centuries.

Admitting a Second and Third Dimension into the Picture: Charts, Compasses, Matrices, a Triangle, and a Cube

David Nolan’s Libertarian Spectrum” (1969)

Given the acknowledged weaknesses of the traditional “Left-Right” 1-dimensional spectrum, one solution is to use a 2 or 3-dimensional diagram (or more dimensions if you can understand the higher mathematics of multi-dimensional spaces), such as one dimension for economic liberties, another for political liberties, and a third for “personal” or “social” liberties. Two examples of this approach is David Nolan’s “Chart” (1969) and the commonly used today “Political Compass”.

David Nolan was one of the founders of the American Libertarian Party and it was an attempt to show how the libertarian ideology fitted into the broader political picture of America in the 1960s and 1970s, since it was largely ignored by the mainstream journalists and political scientists. Nolan’s Chart has come down to us in two versions, his original Chart of 1969 and a “simplified version which followed soon afterwards.

Nolan’s original Chart had 2 axes: a horizontal x-axis which was “Left” (Liberal) or “Right” (Conservative) and a vertical y-axis which had “Libertarian” vs. “Authoritarian”. Rather confusingly, there it also depicted two different kinds of “Freedom” (Personal and Economic) which sloped at an angle

A “simplified” version of the Chart was created to untangle some of this confusion. The main square was rotated to the right and had as its two axes a horizontal x-axis showing the degree of “Economic Freedom” (from 0-100) and a vertical y-axis for “Personal Freedom” (from 0-100) . The main square was divided into rough quadrants with a large square in the centre for the “Centrist” position. The four quadrants include the traditional categories of Liberal (Left), Conservative (Right) , as well as two new ones Authoritarian and Libertarian.

The “Political Compass” (2001)

Quite similar to Nolan’s Chart is the commonly used “Political Compass” which also uses “quadrants” in which political parties are placed. The horizontal x-axis is again “Left” vs. “Right”; and the vertical y-axis is “Authoritarian” vs. “Libertarian.” An Australian “Political Compass” was created by for the 2019 election in which the main political parties are labelled. Most of the parties are clumped together in the top right quadrant (Authoritarian-Right. The libertarian Liberal Democrat Party is all alone in the Libertarian-Right quadrant.

Another version for Australian political parties is below. It is more nuanced in that it tries to show the factions within the Greens (the main party and the “Left Renewal”), Labor (the right and left factions) and the Liberals (Dries (economic “rationalists”) and Wets). Another difference is that they locate all the main parties around the centre, thus identifying them as “Centrist”.

[See below for my version of this for Australian political parties.]

There is also a variation of this used by the ABC called the “Vote Compass” which has 2 dimensions: “Social” (conservative vs. progressive) and “Economic” (left vs. right). They have updated it for the 2022 election for the 2022 election – Election season has arrived and Vote Compass is back – ABC News.

I completed the questionnaire, and was ranked 100% “right” on the economics x-axis and zero on the “Social” y-axis.

David Boaz’s Four-Way Matrix

David Boaz (VP at the Cato Institute) further developed Nolan’s Chart in order to measure the “libertarian” vote in American elections which was not being captured by tradition ways of measuring voter’s values, since the mainstream continued to divide the political world into two main camps – liberal vs. conservative; or Democrat vs. Republican.

Boaz created a modification of David Nolan’s “simplified” chart in his article analyzing the state of play in the US in 2006:

David Boaz and David Kirby, “The Libertarian Vote” (October 18, 2006) Cato Policy Analysis No. 580.

The two axes are “Social Liberalism” and “Economic Liberalism” but the chart is not well designed (the x and y axes usually start at zero at the bottom left)

I have reworked this slightly to make it clearer and to use Australian political terms. Here is my version which I call the “Four-Way Political Matrix”:

And here is my attempt to place Australian political parties in this matrix. There is a clustering of parties in the “Populist” quadrant, the “Centrist” position is populated by both the 2 major parties, and there is only one party in the “Libertarian” quadrant. This shows how “interventionist” all the Australian political parties are

Nick Kastelein’s Political Triangle

As many commentators have pointed out, none of these “compasses” are very useful as they do not capture the complexity of political belief or voter behavior on a variety of issues. See for example in the Australian context, the critique by Nick Kastelein writing in The Spectator in 2018, who argued that the libertarians (the “other right” as he calls them) were once again being left out.

Nick Kastelein, “The other right: what’s wrong with the Political Compass” The Spectator Australia (17 Oct. 2018) Online.

However, his “political triangle” designed to reveal this “other right” is not very adequate either:

A common problem for these “compasses” and “matrices” is that they persist in using the Left-Right spectrum as their starting point, even though as I have tried to show above, this is problematical and mostly unhelpful in understanding the true/real differences between CL and other political ideologies.

A 3-Dimensional “Spectrum” or “Cube”

One enterprising author, Kelley Ross, has tried to create a 3-dimensional political spectrum (or rather a “cube”) in order to plot political ideologies according to the three main kinds of freedoms/liberties we are interested in: economic liberty (on the x axis), personal liberty (on the y axis), and political liberty (on the z axis)

Kelley L. Ross, “Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions” (1996) . Online.

This was an heroic effort but ultimately unreadable. I hope someone skilled in graphic art and design might be able to do a better job because the underlying idea is a sound one.

Quantitatively Speaking: The Cato/Fraser “Human Freedom Index”

The work of Vásquez et al. for the Cato and Fraser Institute’s annual “Human Freedom Index” is sensitive to this problem of complexity in their ranking of 165 countries according to the amount of freedom they enjoy.

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.

The HFI uses a libertarian Lockean definition of liberty in their assessment. They state that :

pp. 9-10: The contest between liberty and power has been ongoing for millennia. For just as long, it has inspired competing conceptions of freedom. … Freedom in our usage is a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals and is defined by the **absence of coercive constraint**. … Freedom thus implies that individuals have the right to lead their lives as they wish as long as they respect the equal rights of others.

The IHF uses a rough 2-dimensional approach, ranking each country according to “Personal Freedom” and “Economic Freedom”, based upon 82 “distinct indicators” which fall into the following 12 areas:

1. Rule of law
2. Security and safety
3. Movement
4. Religion
5. Association, assembly, and civil society
6. Expression and information
7. Relationships
8. Size of government
9. Legal system and property rights
10. Sound money
11. Freedom to trade internationally
12. Regulation

Here are some of the findings of the Index.

The Top 30 Countries (note NZ is no. 2, Australis is 8 (down 4), UK is 14 (down 3), and US is 15; Singapore is quite low because of its lack of political and social freedoms at 48 (economic freedom is 2, but personal freedom is 88))

The Freedom Index for Australia:

Again, this is an heroic attempt to bring some order and understanding to a very complex state of affairs. I would like to see two additional main categories of assessment, namely “Political Freedom” and “Legal Freedom” to make it a bit more finely detailed and complete.

The authors admit that their ranking is incomplete because it leaves out a number of factors which I think are important if we want to get a better picture of the state of freedom in the world.

The editors admit that they can’t assess freedom to use drugs as they do not have consistent data. They also leave out (or do not specify up front) other examples of “prohibition” (like alcohol, cigarette advertising, or abortion) which I believe are serious violations of individual liberty. They also leave out other things like

• conscription (a form of temporary slavery)
• deliberately punitive taxes on (or outright prohibition of) so-called “sin” or “vices” like alcohol, cigarettes, and increasingly petrol in order to discourage their use and thus modify people’s behaviour
• states which invade, bomb, blockade other countries (another kind of “intervention”)
• compulsory voting

I think any true assessment of “freedom” needs to take these additional factors into account.

The Consequences for CLS today

There are several consequences which follow from thinking about the political spectrum and the multi-dimensional nature of liberty in these ways:

• it helps us identify better who we are, what we believe, we we came from, and where we are heading
• it helps us see how we differ from other political groups and ideologies, what we have in common, and what we do not; who are our potential allies and who are are main opponents
• it shows us where there might be opportunities for alliances between libertarians and other groups who share one or two of our ideas but not all of them; there are opportunities to align with those on “the left” on some issues, and with “the right” on others; I call this “triangulation” (based upon the tactics of Pres. Clinton)
• it provides a strategy for arguing with friends and colleagues; if they come from “the left” begin talking to them about things we share with them and once you have won their trust it might be time to gently broach “right wing” issues which they reject but you believe in (and vice versa for those on “the right”)

Until libertarian ideas are accepted by the majority (an unlikely event in my view anyway) this might be best we can hope for in the medium term if we want to spread our ideas to a broader audience and to engage our political opponents in debate.