Classical Liberalism – A Primer. Eamonn Butler

ection>

      

      First published in Great Britain in 2015 by

       The Institute of Economic Affairs

      2 Lord North Street

      Westminster

      London SW1P 3LB

      in association with London Publishing Partnership Ltd

       www.londonpublishingpartnership.co.uk

      The mission of the Institute of Economic Affairs is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

      Copyright © The Institute of Economic Affairs 2015

      The moral right of the author has been asserted.

      All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book.

      A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

      ISBN 978-0-255-36709-7 (ebk)

      Many IEA publications are translated into languages other

      than English or are reprinted. Permission to translate or to reprint

      should be sought from the Director General at the address above.

      Typeset in Kepler by T&T Productions Ltd

       www.tandtproductions.com

      To my friend John Blundell (1952–2014)

      The author

      Eamonn Butler is director of the Adam Smith Institute, a leading policy think tank. He has degrees in economics and psychology, a PhD in philosophy, and an honorary Doctor of Letters. In the 1970s he worked in Washington for the US House of Representatives, and taught philosophy at Hillsdale College, Michigan, before returning to the UK to help found the Adam Smith Institute. He is a former winner of the UK’s National Free Enterprise Award.

      Eamonn is author of books on the pioneering economists Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, a primer on the Austrian School of Economics and The Condensed Wealth of Nations. For the IEA, he has written primers on Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises and public choice theory; his Foundations of a Free Society won the Fisher Prize in 2014. He is co-author of a history of wage and price controls, and of a series of books on IQ. His recent popular publications, The Best Book on the Market, The Rotten State of Britain and The Alternative Manifesto, attracted considerable attention, and he is a frequent contributor to print and broadcast media.

      Acknowledgements

      Once again, I thank Madsen Pirie for his early advice and input, and my other colleagues at the Adam Smith Institute for their forbearance.

      Foreword

      Classical liberalism is one of the most important of modern political and social philosophies. Indeed, we may say that it was the efforts of believers in this set of ideas that were crucial in bringing the modern world into existence. Without the campaigns, arguments, thinking and analysis of people who defined themselves as classical liberals, many of the essential features of modernity, such as sustained intensive growth, the privatisation of religious identity and the abolition of slavery would not have come about.

      Despite its importance, classical liberalism is today poorly understood, often misrepresented (wilfully so in many cases) and wrongly identified with other ways of thinking, notably conservatism. A particular difficulty is the way the American use of the term liberal to mean ‘social democrat’ means that in the English-speaking world believers in traditional liberalism have had to find a new label for their ideas. (This is not the case in continental Europe, where ‘liberal’ retains its traditional meaning.) Libertarian has become the widely adopted term but for various reasons this is unsatisfactory.

      Given this, Eamonn Butler’s account is particularly welcome. It is a wonderfully clear and well set out introduction to what classical liberalism is as a system of thought, whence it came, what it is like now and where it might be going. One valuable feature of the book is the way that it brings out the differences and variety within what nevertheless remains a coherent approach to political thinking and questions of public policy. (The same could be said for socialism and conservatism of course.) It is worth thinking about some of the questions it raises and the ways these might be further explored.

      As the historical account indicates, classical liberalism clearly has roots and origins as a political movement in episodes of English history and a way of thinking about law and government that we can trace back to at least the seventeenth century, if not even earlier to Magna Carta and medieval constitutionalism. However, as it makes clear, there is also a source in the history of continental Europe, not least in France (despite F. A. Hayek describing that country as ‘the most hopeless for classic liberalism’). This goes back to the Enlightenment and thinkers such as Kant but can also be traced further back, to Renaissance and late-­medieval thinkers such as those associated with the School of Salamanca, and to the medieval traditions of constitutional government and limits on royal power, from the Iberian Peninsula to Scandinavia and Poland–Lithuania. Classical liberalism’s origins in Europe do not, however, make it a European way of thinking. It should not be seen as a ‘Western’ ideology; rather it is a perspective that is universal in its orientation and can draw upon compatible and sympathetic traditions in all the world’s cultures and civilisations.

      In addition to the crucial ideas that this book ably sets out and clearly explains, classical liberalism is also associated with a number of attitudes and qualities of style. One of the most important is that of optimism, of confidence that the human condition can be improved and in the last two centuries has improved. Another related one is that of being forward looking, of looking to the future rather than at the past. We might also identify a focus on individuality and self-governance or autonomy. Perhaps the most important is that of civility and of thinking the best of one’s opponents and interlocutors rather than ascribing malevolent purposes and designs to them – a quality lacking in much contemporary discourse.

      This work does an excellent job of describing simply and clearly what classical liberalism is, and also of describing by inference what it is not. Clearly, it is distinct from socialism and other forms of egalitarian collectivism such as social democracy and social or ‘new’ liberalism. It is also not the same as conservatism, being generally more optimistic, more trusting in reason (as opposed to faith or tradition), and less respectful of inherited or traditional institutions. One of the things that becomes apparent on reading this book and which would become even more so on reading much of the suggested further reading, is that far from being conservative, classical liberalism is a radical creed that has already brought about an enormous and profound change in the conditions and ways of life of most of the people in the world, sweeping aside much of the old order in doing this (a point made forcefully by Ludwig von Mises for example). One example of this is the historical association between classical liberalism and feminism, with most of the ‘first wave’ feminists ardent classical liberals and with many examples of that position to be found today.

      Classical liberals as a movement and classical liberalism as a body of ideas have changed much and improved much, but there has also been remission, as the book points out, and there is still much to do. When classical liberals forget this and become rather defenders of the way things are they lose their impetus and a crucial part of their identity. As the work also makes clear with its discussion of new intellectual developments within the tradition, this is not a fixed and perfected body of ideas with sacred texts and everlasting conclusions that require only glossing and commentary. Rather