|
January 4, 2007
I've always puzzled about what classical liberalism stands for these days. How is classical liberalism different from libertarianism or neo-liberalism? It often strikes me that classical liberalism is based on John Locke, whilst neo-liberalism is grounded in utilitarianism. Or is that the American version of classical liberalism? If so, what then does the term 'classical liberalism'--as distinct from libertarianism refer to in Australia? Is classical liberalism and libertarianism synonymous?
At the first cut, classical liberalism holds that the self-regulating tendencies of the market process be accorded unhampered freedom, and secondly, that governmental intervention be recognized as the major disruptive factor in the market process. It is a defense of the priority of individual liberty. Presumably, classical liberalism so understood, differentiates itself from welfare and/ or social liberalism. If classical liberalism means that a market-based society can deliver individual wellbeing through economic growth and personal liberty, then it also means limited government. So what does limited government mean these days when the so-called free market liberals in Canberra stand for big government? Self-reliant Individuals who do not need the welfare net?
Does limited government that mean non-governmental ways (charities) to remedy problems such as poverty, which arise from the inequalities produced by the market? Or does it mean a minimal welfare state in the form of safety net? How far is the welfare state to be rolled back? Presuambly, this is the reason why classical liberalism understands itself to be right of centre.
Classical liberal also means that the freedom of each person should matter to everyone else. Does 'freedom' mean negative freedom (freedom from the coercive actions of others) as distinct from positive freedom (as self-realization)? Is that individual freedom based on rights or utility? If the former, is it based negative rights----rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty--as opposed to the positive rights of social liberalism-- individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others? Or can we talk in terms of American classical liberals who appeal to Lock and British classical liberals who appeal to Hume, his principles of justice and his tacit utilitarianism?
My understanding is that classical liberalism is prior to social liberalism in that it is a laissez-faire liberalism. Though the word 'classical' connotes a backward-looking philosophy" the current advocates of classical liberalism base themselves on a rebirth of the values of limited government and the market order of classical liberalism as undertaken by Hayek and Friedman.
As John Gray observes Hayek is the central figure in modern liberalism :
Hayek must be regarded as among the foremost contemporary exponents of theliberal tradition. Thus it has been justly observed that "Hayek constructs acoherent and powerful case for liberty the equal of which in our present century it is difficult to find." Again, there is much in Hayek's defense of a regime of liberty which answers to the spirit of our age. His skepticism about the ability of governments to promote the public good, his sense of the dangers inherent in unlimited democracy, his critique of current conceptions of distributive or social justice and his demonstration of the vanity of large-scale social engineering-these are themes in his writings which elicit a ready response in a wide constituency of readers.
What resonates is Hayek's conception of practical, tacit knowledge and a spontaneous social order. The latter refers to the claim that in the market process itself there is a constant tendency to self-regulation by spontaneous order in that, when it is unhampered, the process of exchange between competitive firms itself yields a coordination of human activities. The implication is that any large-scale disequilibrium is impossible in a catallaxy of wholly unhampered markets and that there is an evolutionary tendency for the development of habitual practices and conventions in the historical process to converge on liberal institutions.
The social order is not a purposive construction in that the order is not the product of conscious direction as in the order of a management hierarchy in a business corporation. So the demand world of human exchange should be subject to purposive planning is therefore is a demand that social life be reconstructed in the character of a factory, an army, or a business corporation—reconstructed in the character of an authoritarian organization. So the most destabilizing factor in the market process is provided by government intervention. It then appears that spontaneous order functions as a code for invisible hand explanations.
However, if classical (utilitarian) liberalism presupposes individual liberty under the rule of law (as a system of rules), then how do classical liberals see political power as a public power: is it to be exercised for the common good or the public interest? Or is political power based in a network of private contracts, as Nozick held? Do we not lessen government welfare to promote human welfare? Is not justice a primary condition needed to promote general welfare? Yet, on the one hand , it is held that the most destabilizing factor in the market process is provided by governmental intervention, yet the government is required to reform the legal framework reformed to maximize individual liberty. Does not this kind of reform---reforming social institutions so as to make best use of society's spontaneous forces--- invoke a theoretical model of social structure and social process which gives some assurance as to the outcome of our reforms? Are not these reforms a kind of social engineering?
|
Gary, I find the arguments about different kinds of "classical" liberalism completely besides the point.
Why?
We live in a day and age in which every possible context of describing and determing individual and collective behaviour is COMPLETELY different from any other time or place in human history. And also in a very real sense
completely different to what things were like even a few decades ago.
We now live in a quantum world of total interconnectednes with instantaneous communication/propaganda, rapid and mass world wide travel,super technology and weapons of devastating power which are available to any and everyone.
A world which is dominated by the anti-"culture" of the fake mass mind created by TV--the insanity machine in the "living" room and the bed room.
And also in a world in which the so called "great" religions are a pathetic joke--this is especially true of the semitic religions.
And in which the two would be world conquering, and essentially totalitarian, political religions of Christianity and Islam are gearing up for a "final" showdown.
I would also posit that we live in an age of complete despair. Many sensitive people are to one degree or another aware of the collective insanity.
But no one has a clue as to what to do about it.
Meanwhile the strident voices of the "right" and "religious" fundamentalists of all kinds are talking up global warfare.
What is that quote from William Butler Yeats re the only people having any "certainty" being the psychotic crazies?