Difference between revisions of "The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights. | Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights. | ||
| − | ' | + | In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. |
| − | The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a government. | + | The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. |
| + | |||
| + | The state governments that each colony formed was a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. | ||
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. | Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. | ||
Revision as of 13:13, 3 September 2015
Early Americans were very like-minded in their political theory. They were mostly what CW now calls classic liberals who wanted only as much government as was needed to protect liberty, the right to property, and a very few other fundamental rights. Such rights belonged to every person by birth-right irrespective of government.
The early 20th century saw the advent of the progressive view of government as an active force for good, correcting social problems through increased government authority. They saw rights as being defined and granted by government. 2015/08/31 User:Jeff
--Incomplete Draft--
Classic Liberal
- We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein[1], Edward Channing[2], Walter Lippman [3], and F. A. Hayek[4][5] Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.
The State of Nature and the Social Contract
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV[2]). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of inalienable rights. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government.
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government.
The state governments that each colony formed was a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the feudal system in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law.
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book[1] that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do whatever he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else.
Progressive
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "inalienable rights". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Epstein, Richard A; The Classical Liberal Constitution; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Channing, Edward; A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920)
(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history) - ↑ Lippman, Walter; The Good Society; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)
- ↑ Hayek, F A; The Road to Serfdom; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)
- ↑ Hayek, F A; The Constitution of Liberty; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)
