Language, like the old common law and other customs, is a decentralized, undesigned, spontaneous institution. It serves humanity well. Nothing is perfect, of course, but no alternative—if one were conceivable—could hold a candle to it.
One of the downsides is that people may change how they use handy expressions; more wordy phrases may be needed to replace a "corrupted" one. Here's one: classical liberal. Liberal, of course, originally related to individual liberty and its conditions and consequences: private property, constraints on government power, and free markets. It still means something like this outside of America. (A few pioneering liberals, such as Gustave de Molinari, thought the free market could produce security better than the state could.)
Then "progressives" hijacked the word liberal in America and England. Perhaps they didn't want to be associated with socialism. Now it meant advocating the welfare state and government intervention in the market for the sake of so-called "social justice." Private property was pushed to the back burner. The commitment to free speech and other civil liberties continued, but "modern liberalism" had little else in common with original liberalism even in the matter of war and peace.
Because of this change, the qualifier classical became necessary to distinguish original liberals from the welfare/warfare-state, or mixed-economy, advocates. Later, classical liberals started using libertarian to ensure no one was confused. That word has the same root as liberty, and even though socialists of various stripes had used it, the word has nothing to do intrinsically with socialism, that is, the abolition of private property in the means of production. Since socialism must extinguish liberty, the word libertarian is supremely inappropriate for that philosophy.
Like free people and free markets, language never stands still. Lately, classical liberalism has come to mean not advocacy of individual liberty across the board; rather, it signifies a "modern liberal" (an opponent of laissez faire) who continues to believe in free speech. Today we have the spectacle of nonclassical classical liberals. Go figure.
Why did this happen? It seems this came about because in this century, many welfare-state liberals, Democrats for the most part, gave up on free speech. Their former heroes, such as Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, stopped being heroes. Just recently Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz have unambiguously opposed free speech and First Amendment protection on the internet and social media. Kerry summed up his side's case well: because all sorts of views and information are easy to come by these days, "it's really hard to govern today." Poor politicians. Meanwhile, Clinton, who favors repealing Section 230—which exempts social media companies from liability for what users post—says that if those companies do not monitor content as the government wishes, "We lose total control." Control of what? Us, you and me. Obama says government oversight is required, and Walz compared freedom of expression to shouting fire in a crowded theater. First Amendment? What's that? Pathetic, all of them.
These alleged liberals were delighted to see the government lay its heavy hand on social media to suppress information they did not like about COVID-19, Hunter Biden's laptop, and other matters. In some quarters, opposition to free speech combined with a rising interest in an anti-Western value system ("woke-ness") and cultural Marxism left over from the 1960s. Criticism of the Enlightenment grew more common.
Fortunately, this was too much for some "modern liberals." So those who remained committed to reason and free speech picked up the label classical liberal to distinguish themselves from their former colleagues.
The new classical liberals, of course, are not original classical liberals. They are modern welfare-state interventionist liberals, not advocates of individual liberty across the board, including the free market. I've heard some of these thinkers, whom I admire and have learned from, insist that they are still on the "left" and so are not "economic liberals." (I would not put original liberalism on the left-right spectrum, which is incoherent.)
Hence, I suggest we distinguish full liberalism from shrunken liberalism.
Shrunken liberalism espouses free speech, free press, abortion rights, and other civil liberties —but that is pretty much it. What's missing? Any direct reference to so-called economic liberty!
As I've explained before, I don't like the term economic liberty because full, original liberalism refused to carve the individual into personal and economic spheres. The a person is an integrated whole. Each pursues a variety of chosen ends, some involving money and some not, and adapts means best suited to his objectives. Economics is necessary for analyzing those pursuits and the social implications, but the ends are neither economic nor non-economic. They simply are personal ends. The marketplace for goods and services is a marketplace of ideas. The price system, which communicates information to us all, should be protected by the First Amendment.
That is why full liberals proudly did and do champion full-spectrum freedom: civil liberties, the free market, and peace, with its complementary opposition to imperialism and what Jefferson called "entangling alliances." It's as important today as it was in the time of Richard Cobden, John Bright, Lord Acton, Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner, and Ludwig von Mises.
It was Sumner who answered the charge of isolationism leveled against the opponents of the empire-building during the Spanish-American War (a charge made today against noninterventionists) with this:
When the others are all over ears in trouble, who would not be isolated in freedom from care? When the others are crushed under the burden of militarism, who would not be isolated in peace and industry? When the others are all struggling under debt and taxes, who would not be isolated in the enjoyment of his own earnings for the benefit of his own family? When the rest are all in a quiver of anxiety, lest at a day's notice they may be involved in a social cataclysm, who would not be isolated out of reach of the disaster? What we are doing is that we are abandoning this blessed isolation to run after a share in the trouble.
in his book 1927 book, Liberalism, laissez-faire advocate and intellectual destroyer of socialism Mises declared:
The liberal critique of the argument in favor of war is fundamentally different from that of the humanitarians [who sought a bloodless "moral equivalent of war"]. It starts from the premise that not war, but peace, is the father of all things. What alone enables mankind to advance and distinguishes man from the animals is social cooperation. It is labor alone that is productive: it creates wealth and therewith lays the outward foundations for the inward flowering of man. War only destroys; it cannot create. War, carnage, destruction, and devastation we have in common with the predatory beasts of the jungle; constructive labor is our distinctively human characteristic. The liberal abhors war, not, like the humanitarian, in spite of the fact that it has beneficial consequences, but because it has only harmful ones.
The list of full-liberal positions is not random. As Mises pointed out, war is antithetical to individual freedom, private property, the division of labor, and global free exchange, Altogether this constitutes social cooperation.
So we must point this out to the well-meaning shrunken liberals. Bravo on your continued commitment to free speech, other civil liberties, and reason! But don't stop there. Without full liberalism, we aren't fully free.
No comments:
Post a Comment