Later, some people decided that life would be better if government were larger and less limited. If the People had the power to take from some to give to others, and to decide on what terms people could trade. They called themselves liberals.
These latter-day liberals were succesful both in the world of ideas and of practice. In practice, governments grew larger and less limited, spending and taxing more, and imposing more rules. And almost everyone thought that was a good idea.
To distinguish between these two groups of liberals, we could call the older, small-government types classical liberals and the newer, big-government types modern liberals.
But in this apology (except for this page) I will adopt current usage. When I say "liberal" I mean "modern liberal". And in place of the term "classical liberal" I will use "libertarian". Classical liberal and libertarian are rough synonyms, at least as libertarian is currently used in the U.S. Many people who are classical liberals are considered "conservatives". But this is peculiar to the U.S. Also, classical liberalism conflicts with a number of typically conservative ideas. For example, conservatism puts a high value on the status quo and tradition. But classical liberalism is programmatic: it urges a specific set of reforms, regardless of the local status quo or traditions. To a classical liberal, modern liberalism and American conservatism are inconsistent philosophies. Modern liberalism tends to support personal freedom while opposing economic freedom; conservatism tends to support economic freedom while opposing personal freedom; wise classical liberals consistently support freedom, period.
There are two species of classical liberal.
One, while stressing the virtues of capitalism, stresses as well the institutions needed to support capitalism--in particular, the rule of law and property rights. Thus, while these classical liberals fervently advocate small, limited government, they also emphasize the importance of government action in a number of key areas, without which capitalism cannot function. The government must "confine its role in the economy to those few, albeit crucial, areas where free enterprise alone is not enough."[S1].
Such classical liberals have an ambivalent attitude toward the slogan "laissez faire". While they want the government to keep its hands off of many things, they believe it is vital the government keep its hands on "a few, albeit crucial" things. And they point out that in fact there has never been a government which actually kept its hands entirely off the economy. In this light, "laissez faire" is at best a tolerable approximation, at worst a straw man.
A smaller, more radical group of classical liberals argues that the more important a task is, the more important it not be left to government, and applies this logic to education and even to the enforcement of property rights.
Whether classical liberalism exhibits a true qualitative dichotomy, as argued above, or simply a continuous spectrum of declining faith in the state, from modern liberalism to anarcho-capitalism, is debateable.
Modern liberalism is even more heterogenous. There is much more to be said after you've said you favor a large, powerful government. What exactly should such a government do? The distinctive characteristic of modern liberalism, distinguishing it from socialism, is a recognition of the powerful virtues of the market. The role of the government is merely to ameliorate the areas in which the market fails, either in terms of equity or efficiency. But there are quite a few of those areas.
Return to main Apology page.
This page maintained by Steven Blatt. Suggestions,
comments, questions, and corrections are welcome.
S1. Source: Clive Crook's survey on India, The Economist, 22 Feb 1987, p. 5.
Return to main Apology page.
This page maintained by Steven Blatt. Suggestions,
comments, questions, and corrections are welcome.