Classical Liberalism – A Primer. Eamonn Butler
toleration, non-aggression, cooperation and voluntary exchange between free people.
Politically, they favour free speech, free association, the rule of law and – since rulers are no more saintly than the rest of us – limits on government that prevent those in authority doing too much harm.
They know that a good society cannot rest solely on human benevolence. It rests more on the peaceful cooperation of different, self-interested individuals. So they favour freedom and equality under the law, with a strong, trustworthy justice system that prevents us harming others, but does not try to direct our lives.
Economically, classical liberals favour freedom in production and exchange, and the free movement of people, goods and capital. They defend private property and wish to keep taxation to what is necessary to provide the public with defence and any other ‘public goods’ that are underprovided by the market.
This is far from the common caricature of classical liberalism as a tiny, laissez-faire, night-watchman state. Justice alone, for example, is a hugely complex institution that needs great and continuing effort to maintain. Classical liberals know that the protection of life, liberty and property are no small tasks.
1 A note on American liberalismWhen Americans speak of ‘liberalism’, they are talking about something very different from classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, also known as ‘old liberalism’ or ‘liberalism in the European sense’ focuses on the freedom of individuals; the minimisation of coercion; property and free exchange; and a limited, accountable government that protects and expands freedom.American or ‘new liberalism’ or ‘modern liberalism’ shares a strong belief in personal freedom, but considers that freedom is more than merely the absence of coercion – it can be fostered by paternalist and interventionist government.American liberals say that the state has a duty to protect people from themselves and from the unjust inequalities of power that it believes are often created by property ownership. They call for a generous welfare system to compensate the poor and support for workers against their (more powerful) employers. They are sceptical that economic freedom produces public benefits (such as high employment) and believe that the state should intervene in order to expand opportunities, provide public goods and make markets serve the public interest.Classical liberals are very suspicious of such policies. They fear that government power easily grows far beyond its usefulness; and point out that even the best-intentioned policies often have dismal and unintended consequences.
Classical liberalism: the family tree
Early ancestors
Some classical liberals trace their ideas back to the Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu, who advocated restraint in leadership. Twenty centuries ago, the Indian emperor Ashoka was also calling for freedom and political tolerance. And Islam embraced economic freedom from its earliest origins in the sixth century.
But these are distant cousins of modern classical liberalism. The direct line is European, indeed specifically English. According to the classical liberal thinker and politician Daniel Hannan (1971–), it starts with the Anglo-Saxons, who from around the year 400 started to settle in what we now call England.
Anglo-Saxon England
As an island nation, hard to invade, England enjoyed greater stability than continental Europe, and there arose a secure system of property tenure and justice. It was not something anyone intended – just the gradual result of independent-minded Anglo-Saxons standing ox-like in their furrows and establishing their rights against interlopers.
Later, the need to co-exist with the Vikings, who started settling from around 800, led to the equally unintended emergence of a common language and common legal arrangements. In the absence of any European-style feudal authority, what came out of this melting pot was the common law – the law of the land that evolved through the interactions of individuals, rather than the law of princes laid down by the powerful.
The common law remains a key foundation of classical liberalism today. It was not monarchical, but determined by the people themselves. It respected private ownership and contract. It recognised liberty under the law. Nobody had to ask permission before acting: anything not specifically prohibited was legal. The law was everyone’s business, and law officers were accountable. Even kings were chosen by a council of elders (the Witan), which would demand their loyalty – rather than the reverse.
Invasion and rebirth
This came to a sudden end in 1066, with the Norman invasion and military occupation. England became ruled by a European elite, whose language and authoritarian ways separated them from the English population. They imposed feudalism, serfdom, social stratification and top-down law-making – the complete opposite of the freedoms and limited government that the Anglo-Saxons had known.
But within a few generations, the Norman landowners identified more and more with the locals; while King John (1166–1216), insulated behind his French courtiers, came to look increasingly detached and despotic, arbitrarily manipulating the law in order to maximise his tax revenues.
The result, in 1215, was the barons forcing the king to sign a great charter – Magna Carta – of rights and privileges.
Most of the charter is about reasserting people’s ancient property rights, and protecting them from the arbitrary predations of officialdom – the sort of secure rights of tenure that classical liberals deem of crucial importance today.
But a key part of the charter crystallised ancient freedoms – of the church, of cities and of the general population – and classical liberal principles such as trial by jury and the due process of law. It even asserted that the king, like everyone else, would be bound by the ‘law of the land’. Government, in other words, would be subject to the rule of law.
Though John disavowed the charter, he died soon after. His son Henry III came to the throne as a minor, and power subtly shifted from the monarchy to an assembly of barons. Henry reissued the charter, voluntarily, in 1225. But further confrontations with the barons, mostly over taxes for wars, led to another classical liberal initiative in England – the creation of Parliament.
The rise of classical liberalism
Cultural and religious revolutions
The English historian Lord Acton (1834–1902) wrote that: ‘Liberty is established by the conflict of powers’. In mainland Europe, the authority of the Roman Empire in the West and of subsequent feudal lords and monarchs had been challenged by the rise of the Christian Church. They did not consciously develop free institutions, but the mutual limitations that they imposed on each other opened up the opportunity for greater personal freedom.
Two other historical events in Europe cemented the importance of individual freedom over state power. A key part of the cultural revolution that was the Renaissance, roughly between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, was the introduction of the printing press into Europe in 1450. This simple invention broke the elites’ monopoly over science and learning, making knowledge accessible to ordinary individuals. No longer did anyone have to consult authorities for guidance and permission: they had the information on which to base their own choices.
The Protestant Reformation, sparked by Martin Luther in 1517, reinforced this further. It challenged the power of the Catholic Church, and raised the self-esteem of ordinary people by asserting that they could have direct, personal and equal access to God, without needing the intermediation of an elite priesthood.
All this served to raise the position and importance of the individual over the established institutions of power. In the countries where this greater freedom flourished most, art, industry, science and commerce flourished too.
Political revolution
Politically, things were also changing. A pro-freedom mass movement, the Levellers, swept over England in the 1650s. It was led by John Lilburne (1614–57), who insisted that people’s rights were inborn rather than bestowed by government or law. Arrested for printing unlicensed books (in defiance of the official monopoly), he appeared before the notorious Star Chamber, but refused to bow to the judges (insisting that he was their equal) or accept their procedures.