DOCSLIB.ORG

Classical Liberalism and International Relations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FEATURE CLASSICAL LIBERALISM AND InternatIOnaL RELatIONS Classical liberal ideas apply between states as well as within states, explains Edwin van de Haar uestions of war and peace, or foreign Classical liberals often disagree on its precise policy in general, are among the definition, but most regard classical liberalism as most dramatic issues in politics. It is the political theory characterised by a firm belief no wonder that classical liberal think in individualism, negative freedom, non-religious tanks publish papers and articles on natural law, spontaneous order, a limited state, international affairs. Often these are reactions to and the rule of law.3 In this article these ideas current issues. They hardly ever clarify how their will be briefly introduced and then applied to points of view relate to classical liberalism as a international relations, thus sketching the contours political philosophy. This begs the question: Does of a classical liberal approach to world politics. In a classical liberal approach to international the process it will become clear that liberalism relations exist? in the American sense differs substantially from This article will argue in the affirmative, classical liberalism. that it is possible to judge current foreign policy Individualism and freedom standpoints from a classical liberal perspective and to develop a classical liberal foreign policy agenda. For liberals the individual is of ultimate value, Based on a study of four important classical liberal which entails that politics must serve the greater thinkers, David Hume, Adam Smith, Ludwig benefit of individual people. The basis for the von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek, it will show that classical liberal idea is its view on human nature: classical liberalism is applicable in international as what are individuals capable of, physically and well as domestic politics.1 Academic international relations theory is Dr Edwin van de Haar is a Lecturer in dominated by American-style liberalism, which International Relations at the Ateneo has much in common with European and Australian social democracy. One effect of this de Manila University in The Philippines. is the equation of liberalism with Immanuel His book Classical Liberalism and Kant and Woodrow Wilson inspired calls for International Relations Theory: Hume, a world federation of the brotherhood of man, Smith, Mises, and Hayek is forthcoming cosmopolitanism, a belief in the goodness of people with Palgrave Macmillan. and the possibility of abolishing war, optimism about the peace-enhancing outcomes of increased intergovernmental international organisation, Endnotes for this essay can be found international free trade, and so forth.2 at www.policymagazine.com. Vol. 25 No. 1 • Autumn 2009 • POLICY 35 CLASSICAL LIBERALISM AND InternatIOnaL RELatIONS rationally; what are their fundamental urges and international affairs, just as the best possible law natural instincts; and how do they relate to other system (however defined) cannot abolish crime in humans? One feature is that classical liberals a domestic political setting. Classical liberals argue take man as he is, not as he should become. that efforts to achieve perpetual peace are destined They start theorising from a realistic assessment to end in failure and they distance themselves of man’s abilities. Man is seen to be governed from the endless stream of utopias the history of by an interplay of passion and reason. Human ideas has produced. intellectual capacities can be impressive, but The ultimate goal of classical liberalism in are always limited: reason is not omnipotent, international relations is the same as in domestic particularly not when processing information or politics: to maximise individual freedom for all attempting to predict or plan complex societal people. Individuals fare best when they can freely phenomena. Human reason is an important tool deal with the challenges and opportunities in for individuals to adapt to change, but reason is life. Classical liberals define freedom as an area incapable of permanently overcoming certain of non-interference by others individuals and innate natural traits. Human nature is frail and the state. In the classical liberal view, winning ultimately, as Hume famously argued in A Treatise back and expanding this freedom is one of the of Human Nature, ‘man is and ought to be the most important tasks, especially in the modern slave to the passions.’ Human beings are not (Western) world. Historically, this call for destined to wrongdoing in a moral sense, but they freedom found an expression in the rejection of do tend towards it. Only a few are always prone to imperialism and colonialism. For example, Hume unlawful behaviour, but a much larger group can and Smith were strong supporters of American be ‘seduced from the more important but more independence, and Hayek and Mises supported distant interest, by the allurement of the present decolonialisation in the twentieth century. though often very frivolous temptations. This Wars have a negative effect on human freedom great weakness is incurable in man.’4 in several ways, but they are an inevitable feature of human nature.6 Therefore, the relevant question for classical liberals is not how they can Classical liberals take man as be abolished, but how they can be dealt with. he is, not as he should become. Natural law One part of the answer is provided by the natural law foundation of classical liberalism. Its aim of The classical liberal view on human nature achieving the greatest individual freedom is based is not just some unfounded normative choice, on the concept of natural rights. Every individual easily replaceable by any other view. These old has the right to life, liberty and property—and but crucial insights are increasingly supported respect for these rights is crucial for a just order. by research in the fields of evolutionary biology It enables humans, who are after all social and neuroscience, which point out that struggle, beings by nature, to live together and cooperate. competition, the protection of honour, and tribal The laws of nature are a set of rules aimed to and ethnic conflict remain crucial elements in preserve and protect natural rights and to achieve explaining both individual and group behaviour.5 social justice.7 Humans are not angels, Madison famously There is much discussion over natural law, argued in the Federalist Papers. One important which goes beyond the purposes of this article. consequence of this observation is the impossibility In international relations, the most obvious of rooting out the causes of friction and conflict link between natural law and classical liberalism between people. Since state action is human action, is found in the latter’s support for the ‘just war this means it is also impossible to get rid of war. tradition,’ which is associated with natural Depending on the circumstances military conflict law thinkers such as the Dutch scholar Hugo can sometimes be prevented or minimised, but as Grotius. Put briefly, the just war tradition limits such it can never be completely abolished from the grounds for warfare to a number of justified 36 Vol. 25 No. 1 • Autumn 2009 • POLICY CLASSICAL LIBERALISM AND InternatIOnaL RELatIONS causes and sets rules for the ways to fight wars. As states are the most important actors in international such the aim is to minimise international conflict. relations. Hume’s writings contain many examples of his To maximise individual freedom the state embrace of the just war tradition; Smith ended should only have a limited number of tasks. The the Theory of Moral Sentiments explicitly praising state is an important protector of natural rights, Grotius; while Hayek applied just war principles but history has shown that it is also the biggest in his numerous commentaries on world events, abuser of these rights. The principle of the rule such as his condemnation of American inaction of law intends to protect the negative liberty of in the Iran-hostage case of the late seventies and individuals. Classical liberals think the state can his support for the British in the Falklands War best be bound by a combination of constitutions; of 1981.8 separation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers; and the limitation of positive law. The nation and the limited state In international affairs this means that states Liberalism is the political expression of should be cautious about concluding and ratifying individualism, yet cooperation of individuals in treaties and other forms of positive law. These are groups is valued positively. For classical liberals often binding commitments that are very hard the nation, or the country, is the largest group to change or to get rid of, with a large possible in society which is the object of human passion, negative impact on individual freedom. both positive in the sense of national pride and negative in the sense of shame and humiliation. Hume noted that few men are entirely indifferent Attempts to build a better to their country, and both he and Adam Smith underlined that humans sympathise more with world by establishing people to whom they are close than with strangers international organisations or foreigners. Feelings for the nation are strong, and regimes are rejected. natural motivational forces for individuals.9 This also applies in the age of modern states and nationalism. Despite the atrocities committed Some international agreements may be useful in the name of national glory throughout the to smooth the working of the international society twentieth century, Mises and Hayek never of states, or to settle practical matters. But the predicted nor called for the end of the nation dangers of overregulation are just as real in world state. Mises thought that language was the essence politics as they are in national politics. Besides of nationality, and with the fragmentation of some specific cross-border issues, the classical the polyglot Austro-Hungarian Empire in mind liberal rule of thumb is that there is no need for he argued that multi-language countries were international state action if there is no domestic doomed to failure.
Recommended publications
  • How Far Is Vienna from Chicago? an Essay on the Methodology of Two Schools of Dogmatic Liberalism

    How Far Is Vienna from Chicago? an Essay on the Methodology of Two Schools of Dogmatic Liberalism

    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Paqué, Karl-Heinz Working Paper — Digitized Version How far is Vienna from Chicago? An essay on the methodology of two schools of dogmatic liberalism Kiel Working Paper, No. 209 Provided in Cooperation with: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) Suggested Citation: Paqué, Karl-Heinz (1984) : How far is Vienna from Chicago? An essay on the methodology of two schools of dogmatic liberalism, Kiel Working Paper, No. 209, Kiel Institute of World Economics (IfW), Kiel This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/46781 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Kieler Arbeitspapiere Kiel Working Papers Working Paper No.
  • The Contradiction of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism

    The Contradiction of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism

    The contradiction of classical liberalism and libertarianism blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/02/01/the-contradiction-of-classical-liberalism-and-libertarianism/ 2/1/2017 A standard assumption in policy analyses and political debates is that classical liberal or libertarian views represent a radical alternative to a progressive or egalitarian agenda. In the political arena, classical liberalism and libertarianism often inform the policy agenda of centre-right and far- right parties. They underpin laissez-faire policies and reject any redistributive action, including welfare state provisions and progressive taxation. This is motivated by a fundamental belief in the value of personal autonomy and protection from (unjustified) external interference, including from the state. It is difficult to overestimate the philosophical and political relevance of classical liberalism and libertarianism. President Trump’s proposal to repeal the “Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)”, for example, is clearly inspired by a libertarian philosophical outlook whereby “No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to” (Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again ). More generally, in the last four decades the political consensus, and the spectrum of policy proposals and outcomes, has significantly moved in a less interventionist, more laissez faire direction. The centrality of classical liberal and libertarian views has been such that the historical period after the end of the 1970s – following the election of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US – has come to be known as the “Neoliberal era”. Yet the very coherence of the classical liberal and libertarian view of society, and its consistency with the fundamental tenets of modern democracies, have been questioned.
  • Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change

    Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change

    Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change Justin “Gus” Hurwitz & Geoffrey A. Manne ICLE Innovation & the New Economy Research Program White Paper 2018-1 ICLE | 2117 NE Oregon St. Ste 501 | Portland, OR 97232 | 503.770.0652 [email protected] | @laweconcenter | www.laweconcenter.org 2 13 Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change Justin (Gus) Hurwitz and Geoffrey A. Manne Introduction The relationship between classical liberalism and technology is surprisingly fraught. The common understanding is that technological advance is complementary to the principles of classical liberalism – especially in the case of contemporary, information-age technology.1 This is most clearly on display in Silicon Valley, with its oft-professed libertarian (classical liberalism’s kissing cousin) affinities. The analytical predicate for this complementarity is that classical liberalism values liberty-enhancing private ordering, and technological advance both is generally facially liberty-enhancing and facilitates private ordering. 1 This chapter focuses on “contemporary technology.” That is, generally, those technologies associated with the information revolution of the past generation: computers, the Internet, and related information communications and processing technologies. A treatment of the relationship between classical liberalism and a more generalized concept of technology is beyond the scope of this chapter. It is, however, the authors’ view that the discussion offered here is relevant to such a broader conceptualization. 3 This analysis, however, is incomplete. Classical liberalism recognizes that certain rules are necessary in a well-functioning polity.2 The classical liberal, for instance, recognizes the centrality of enforceable property rights, and the concomitant ability to seek recourse from a third party (the state) when those rights are compromised.
  • Property and Ownership

    Property and Ownership

    Property and Ownership Gerald Gaus 1 PRIVATE PROPERTY: FUNDAMENTAL OR PASSÉ? For the last half century, thinking within political philosophy about private property and ownership has had something of a schizophrenic quality. The classical liberal tradition has always stressed an intimate connection between a free society and the right to private property.1 As Ludwig von Mises put it, “the program of liberalism....if condensed to a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership....”2 Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia, drawing extensively on Locke, gave new life to this idea; subsequently a great deal of political philosophy has focused on the justification (or lack of it) of natural rights to private property.3 Classical liberals such as Eric Mack — also drawing extensively on Locke’s theory of property — have argued that “the signature right of any rights-oriented classical liberalism is the right of self-ownership.”4 In addition, Mack argues that “we have the same good reasons for ascribing to each person a natural right of property” in “extrapersonal objects.”5 Each individual, Mack contends, has “an original, nonacquired right … to engage in the acquisition of extrapersonal objects and in the disposition of those acquired objects as one sees fit in the service of one’s ends.”6 Essentially, one has a natural right to become an owner of external property. Not all contemporary classical liberals hold that property rights are natural, but all insist that strong rights to private property are essential for a free society.7 Jan Narveson has recently defended the necessity in a free society of property understood as “a unitary concept, explicable as a right over a thing owned, against others who are precluded from the free use of it to which ownership entitles the owner.”8 GAUS/2 The “new liberal” project of showing that a free society requires robust protection of civil and political rights, but not extensive rights of private property (beyond personal property) has persistently attacked this older, classical, liberal position.
  • THE ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY in the Economic Setting of the Market Economy

    THE ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY in the Economic Setting of the Market Economy

    The ANTI ·CAPITALIS TI C MENTALITY by LUDWIG VON MISES THE LUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE AUBURN, ALABAMA 2008 Originally Copyright, ©, 1956 by D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY, INC. Published simultaneously in Canada by D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY (Canada), LTD. Library of Congress Catalogue Card No.: 56-12097 Contents CHAPTER PAGE Introduction V I THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CAPITALISM AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF ITs VILIFICATION I I. The Sovereign Consumer I 2. The Urge for Economic Betterment 3 3. Status Society and Capitalism 4 4. The Resentment of Frustrated Ambition II 5. The Resentment of the Intellectuals 15 6. The Anti-capitalistic Bias of American Intellectuals 18 7. The Resentment of the White Collar Workers 21 8. The Resentment of the "Cousins" 25 9. The Communism of Broadway and Hollywood 30 II THE ORDINARY MAN'S SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY 34 I. Capitalism as It Is and as It Is Seen by the Common Man 34 2. The Anti-capitalistic Front 43 iii CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE III LITERATURE UNDER CAPITALISM 48 I. The Market for Literary Products 48 2. Success on the Book Market SI 3. Remarks about the Detective Stories S2 4. Freedom of the Press S5 5. The Bigotry of the Literati 58 6. The "Social" Novels and Plays 66 IV THE NONECONOMIC OBJECTIONS TO CAPITALISM 73 I. The Argument of Happiness 73 2. Materialism 75 3. Injustice 80 4. The "Bourgeois Prejudice" for Liberty 90 5. Liberty and Western Civilization 99 V "ANTICOMMUNISM" VERSUS CAPITALISM 106 INDEX II3 IV Introduction The substitution of laissez-faire capitalism for the pre­ capitalistic methods of economic management has multiplied population figures and raised in an unprecedented way the average standard of living.
  • In Praise of Liberalism: an Assessment of Liberal Political Thought from the 17Th Century to Today

    In Praise of Liberalism: an Assessment of Liberal Political Thought from the 17Th Century to Today

    Review of Contemporary Philosophy Vol. 14, 2015, pp. 11–36, ISSN 1841-5261 IN PRAISE OF LIBERALISM: AN ASSESSMENT OF LIBERAL POLITICAL THOUGHT FROM THE 17TH CENTURY TO TODAY MICHAEL B. FRIEDMAN [email protected] School of Social Work, Columbia University ABSTRACT. The author of this essay maintains that liberalism has been the primary source of progressive change in the United States since its earliest history. To support his claim, he traces the philosophical and political history of liberalism in England and the United States. The specific forms of liberalism have varied in different periods of history; but, he maintains, there is an underlying spirit of liberalism that has persisted throughout the past 350 years and can be the source of dynamic progressive social change in the 21st century. Throughout history, he maintains, liberalism has been committed to social progress and has sought to improve the lives of populations that are economically and politically disadvantaged. This underlying spirit, the author argues, can be the source for an energized liberal agenda for the 21st century. Keywords: liberalism; political philosophy; political history 1. Introduction Conservative – and even centrist – opponents of liberalism reject it because they identify it with cumbersome government; reckless spending; high tax- ation; naiveté about economics, crime, and world power; and lack of moral values. What a mistake! In fact, liberalism has been the source of social and political progress in the Western world since the 17th century. The idea that rights set a limit on the legitimate power of government is a liberal idea. The idea that govern- ment must respect the liberty of individuals is a liberal idea.
  • Omnipotent Government: the Rise of Total State and Total

    Omnipotent Government: the Rise of Total State and Total

    Copyright Preface Contents Introduction Part I Part II Part III Part IV Conclusion Index OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT The Rise of the Total State and Total War Ludwig von Mises Libertarian Press, Inc. P.O. Box 309 Grove City, PA 16127 (412) 458-5861 Copyright © 1985, Margit von Mises. Reprinted 1985 with permission of Margit von Mises by the Center for Futures Education, Inc., Grove City, PA. Special permission to print the Center’s edition granted to Libertarian Press, Inc., Spring Mills, PA, by the Center for Futures Education, Inc. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in connection with a review. This online edition made available by the Mises Institute by special lease arrangement with the Libertarian Press. All copyrights held by Libertarian Press remain applicable to this online edition. Copyright © 1969, Arlington House, New Rochelle, NY. Copyright © 1944, Yale University Press. Reprinted 1969 with permission of Yale University Press in an unaltered and unabridged edition. ISBN 0-910884-15-3 iii Preface In dealing with the problems of social and economic policies, the social sciences consider only one question: whether the measures suggested are really suited to bringing about the effects sought by their authors, or whether they result in a state of affairs which—from the viewpoint of their supporters—is even more undesirable than the previous state which it was intended to alter. The economist does not substitute his own judgment about the desirability of ultimate ends for that of his fellow citizens.
  • The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism Rawi Abdelal and John G

    The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism Rawi Abdelal and John G

    chapter 7 The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism Rawi Abdelal and John G. Ruggie In this essay we revisit the principles of “embedded liberalism” and argue for their relevance to the contemporary global economy. The most essential principle is the need for markets to enjoy social legitimacy, because their politi- cal sustainability ultimately depends on it. From this principle we analyze three current sets of practices and institutions in which ongoing crises of legitimacy demonstrate the need for a renewal of embedded liberalism and a revitalization of global governance. They are: the activities of transnational corporations, particularly with regard to core standards in labor and human rights; the orga- nization of the international financial architecture; and the formal rules and informal norms of international organizations. Learning the Lessons of Embedded Liberalism The post-1945 world economy embodied a social bargain. In the aftermath of the political and economic chaos of 1920s, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Second World War—all of which together shattered the world order within the span of a single generation—policymakers sought to reorganize and rebuild the world economy by restoring open markets, promising to mitigate their adverse social consequences and thereby preempting societal demands, from both left and right, to replace markets altogether. The failure to strike such a compromise earlier had undermined international cooperation in trade and macroeconomic policy during the 1920s and 1930s, just as it had caused the collapse of the first era of globalization, circa 1870 to 1914. Influential scholars and policymakers began to make sense of how that first era of globalization had lost its way.
  • Capitalism in the Classical and High Liberal Traditions*

    Capitalism in the Classical and High Liberal Traditions*

    CAPITALISM IN THE CLASSICAL AND HIGH LIBERAL TRADITIONS* By Samuel Freeman I. Essential Features of Liberalism Liberalism holds that there are certain individual liberties that are of fundamental political significance. These liberties are fundamental or basic in that they are preconditions on the pursuit of other social values, such as achieving economic efficiency, promoting the general welfare, and mod- erating the degree of inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. None of these liberties are absolute, but the reasons for limiting their exercise are to protect other basic liberties and maintain essential back- ground conditions for their effective exercise. For example, freedom of speech and expression can be limited when it imminently endangers others’ safety or the freedom of their person, but not because the ideas expressed are found to be offensive by vast majorities of people. Liberal basic liberties are also inalienable: they cannot be given up voluntarily or permanently transferred to anyone else, though some liberties are forfeit- able upon criminal conviction for serious crimes. No liberal government would enforce a contract in which a person sold himself into permanent servitude, or alienated his freedom to change religions, or legally bound himself to vote only as his employer insisted. An integral feature of a liberal constitution is the protection of the basic rights and liberties nec- essary to establish and maintain the equal civic status of citizens. What liberties do liberals generally find to have this extraordinary status? Liberals now would all agree that among the basic liberties are freedom of thought, expression, and inquiry, freedom of conscience and of association, freedom and security of the person, and free choice of occupation.
  • NATURAL LAW, LIBERALISM, and CHRISTIANITY Frank Van Dun*

    NATURAL LAW, LIBERALISM, and CHRISTIANITY Frank Van Dun*

    Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 15, no. 3 (Summer 2001), pp. 1–36 Ó2001 Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org NATURAL LAW, LIBERALISM, AND CHRISTIANITY Frank van Dun* Classical liberalism arose at a time when Christian orthodoxy was still vibrant.1 Liberalism and Christian orthodoxy, sharing a number of fundamental ideas about the nature of man and of inter- personal relations, presuppose the same moral ontology of natural law. The high tide of Christian orthodoxy and classical liberalism belongs to the era when natural law was the fundamental concept of all serious thought about the human world. Both classical liberalism and Christianity went into sharp de- cline from the later nineteenth century onward, and, by the begin- ning of the twentieth century, the concept of natural law was rap- *Professor of Philosophy of Law at the Universities of Ghent and Maas- tricht. An earlier version of this text was presented at the conference “The World Out of Balance?” (Gummersbach, Germany, November 5–7, 1999), held at the Theodor Heuss Akademie, and organized in cooperation with the Von Mises Institute (Ghent), Nova Civitas (Ghent), and The Centre for a New Europe (Brussels). The author wishes to thank the participants for their questions and comments. 1By “classical liberalism,” I mean the liberalism of those who postulate a necessary link between liberty and objective law and justice, i.e., respect for natural persons, their property, and contractual obligations. By “Chris- tian orthodoxy,” I mean the interpretation of the Bible that became au- thoritative within the main churches as a result of the efforts of Saint Augustine and other early church fathers.
  • Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School

    Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School

    Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School Ralph Raico Foreword by Jörg Guido Hülsmann Preface by David Gordon LvMI MISES INSTITUTE The cover design by Chad Parish shows the Neptune Fountain, at the Schönbrunn Palace, in Vienna. Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. Ludwig von Mises Institute 518 West Magnolia Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36832 mises.org ISBN: 978-1-61016-003-2 Dedicated to the memory of the great Ludwig von Mises Table of Contents Foreword by Jörg Guido Hülsmann . ix Preface by David Gordon . xiii Introduction . .xxv 1. Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School . .1 2. Liberalism: True and False . .67 3. Intellectuals and the Marketplace. 111 4. Was Keynes a Liberal? . .149 5. The Conflict of Classes: Liberal vs. Marxist Theories. .183 6. The Centrality of French Liberalism . .219 7. Ludwig von Mises’s Liberalism on Fascism, Democracy, and Imperalism . .255 8. Eugen Richter and the End of German Liberalism. .301 9. Arthur Ekirch on American Militarism . .331 Index. .339 vii Foreword “History looks backward into the past, but the lesson it teaches concerns things to come. It does not teach indolent quietism; it rouses man to emulate the deeds of earlier generations.” Ludwig von Mises1 The present book contains a collection of essays written through- out the past twenty years. I read virtually all of them when they were first published. They have been a central part of my education in the history of liberalism and of the Austrian School of economics, and I consider myself privileged indeed to have encountered Professor Raico and his work early on in my intellectual development.
  • Rousseau, David L., Thomas C. Walker. 2012. "Liberalism."

    Rousseau, David L., Thomas C. Walker. 2012. "Liberalism."

    2 Liberalism David L. Rousseau and Thomas C. Walker Liberalism is an expansive concept that carries a variety of meanings for students of pol- itics. For Doyle (1997: 206), ‘liberalism resembles a family portrait of principles and institutions, recognizable by certain characteristics – for example, individual freedom, political participation, private property, and equality of opportunity’. In the realm of International Relations (IR), students look to liberalism to explain how human reason, progress, individual rights and freedoms can give rise to more peaceful interstate relations. Liberals predict that stable democracies and economically interdependent states will behave differently in several respects. First and most importantly, democratic states are less likely to initiate and escalate conflicts with other states (also known as the ‘demo- cratic peace theory’). Second, democratic states are more likely to engage in international trade and investment, and the resultant interdependence will contribute to peace. Third, democratic states are more likely to seek cooperative solutions through international institutions. While there are significant differences between individual liberal thinkers, all have a general faith in the pacifying effects of political liberty, economic freedom, interdependence and international association. Before proceeding, it is important to dispel one persistent myth that has clouded understandings of liberalism: the association between early forms of liberal inter- nationalism and normative-laden versions of idealism. For example, Howard (1978: 11) defined ‘liberals’ as ‘all those thinkers who believe the world to be profoundly other than it should be, and who have faith in the power of human reason and human action so to change it’. But liberal theory provides much more than imagining a world as it should be.