Must Read Blog Post: Boudreaux on Liberalism

When Don Boudreaux is "on," not many can match him.  His post today on the cosmopolitan and tolerant values of true/classical liberalism is not only dead spot on, it is beautifully written.  It is one of the finest statements of liberal values I've read in a long time.  I'll give you an excerpt below, but you really need to read the whole thing.

Liberalism recognizes that people are part of families and friendships and a variety of different kinds of associations.  Liberals encourage, or at least tolerate, any and all forms of voluntary associations, from marital ones to religious ones to trading ones.  Liberals reject the romantic nonsense that demands that each person "love" or "care for" everyone in the same way that that person loves and cares for himself, his family, and his friends.

But liberalism rejects the notion that there is anything much special or compelling about political relationships.  It is tribalistic, atavistic, to regard those who look more like you to be more worthy of your regard than are those who look less like you.  It is tribalistic, atavistic, to regard those who speak your native tongue to be more worthy of your affection and concern than are those whose native tongues differ from yours.

For the true liberal, the human race is the human race.  The struggle is to cast off as much as possible primitive sentiments about "us" being different from "them."

Outstanding Don.

Comments

[Greg Ransom]

Don is a great writer. Did I say great?

[Don Boudreaux]

Thanks Steve -- and Greg.

[Sukrit]

In the Western nations, the tribalistic mentality is a bit less than in Asia and Africa, but it's still very strong. It's what allows the American government to dispense terror to the residents of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. - because they are the "other"; in the same way, British citizens wasted little breadth on the treatment of colonial subjects by their government during the heyday of colonialism.

I agree with the sentiments. I was born in India, but have lived in both the US and Australia. I don't consider myself more "Australian" (even though I'm a citizen), nor am I more "Indian" (even though that's where my cultural roots are). I'm just me.

My Australian citizenship is just for convenience. I also possess dual Indian citizenship, but that's also for convenience. I don't think a liberal should define themselves through nationalism - most modern states were borne out of violence or are basically accidents of history, so I fail to see the utility in pleding loyalty to a country. Pledge allegiance to ideals, sure, but not to a flag.

[Curt Doolittle]

I think that liberalism is a philosophy for a class of individuals who are wealthy enough to compete globally, and do not need to ally with those people competitive with those others who are likewise geographically constrained -- where they are constrained for a multitude of reasons.

More simply stated: A lion and a mouse have different philosophies. Each would die if possessed of the others. Philosophies are for acting, and acting is dependent upon ability.

Academics, bankers, executives, professionals, and some tradesmen are global competitors, and they are more benefitted by their membership in the global professional class. However, the less fortunate and less skilled, and less talented, form the same global class, and as such rely upon local political philosophies in order to capture value (wealth) by political means, rather than be passed over by it.

This may seem unrelated to the post, and although I refer to myself as a libertarian more than any other constituency, that does not mean that the question put forward in the post is logically constructed: people hold beliefs because those beliefs have value to them in acting. Holding other beliefs is just as rational if one's circumstances are different.

If we say all men are unequal, and they must be, in a division of knowledge and labor and geography, then to say men should all possess the same philosophy is simply irrational. A universal philosophy would require that some set of men suffer for the sake of others. And it is probably economically inconsistent by any measure as well: property is created by the restraint of violence, and that restraint comes at a cost. That cost in turn is born more by those who forgo the opportunity to break the treaty of property than those who need not do so, simply because they possess skills of greater or more scarce value.

I would rather not call myself a liberal if it means such a class distinction. Because to do so is to both reason and act no better and no less dangerously than did the communists. Instead I'd prefer to call myself one who supports the institutions of capitalism which allow economic reasoning, calculation, coordination and cooperation. and that any form of political philosophy is simply a matter of how we divide those spoils of that system - in the myriad of ways those spoils may be considered.

If we do not have property we cannot create the world sought by liberalism. If we have property and a division of knowledge and labor which rewards people differently in order to incentivize them, then we cannot practically implement liberalism either because those benefitting less from liberalism are paying an opportunity cost by their constraint without compensation for it. in other words, liberalism is a class distinction.

And I do not see any record, post-monarchy and it's familial guidance, of the market producing terribly useful innovation across the SPECTRUM of possible innovation, such as infrastructure, nor of it preventing less warfare and instead increasing both it's frequency and violence. Nor of it's production of decent citizens, in the sense that they share some set of ambitions, even if those ambitions are simply aesthetic.

We need capitalism. It's a necessity. After that foundation, the rest of how we operate together as an overlapping network of voluntary and involuntary tribes, is something we need a name for, and perhaps a philosophy. Unless this is just all a class conspiracy. as was Marxism. :)

Cheers
Curt

[Roger Koppl]

Honestly, Curt, I'm not sure you are quite making sense. At any rate, I am puzzled. Liberalism is a philosophy for the dispossessed, not the rich. The rich are naturally disposed to conservative views, hoping to preserve the status quo that makes them rich. Poor and marginalized people are given a chance by liberal policies. They may not always recognize the benefits of liberalism, but they are liberalism's natural constituency. This thought brings me to my puzzlement over your take on alternative "philosophies."

It was natural for the Wind think that strong gusts would blow the man's coat off his back. And it was natural for the Sun to think that warm beams would work better. Your post suggests we can say only, "The Wind and the Sun have different philosophies." In fact, however, the Sun was right and the Wind was wrong. Their different "philosophies" may be equally natural, but they are not equally true.

Returning to political philosophy, not all proposals for "how we divide [the] spoils" of capitalism (so called) will have their intended effects. The economist's job is to point out which proposals have effects consistent with the goals of the proposer and which do not. The economist's job is to tell the King, the mouse, and lion that neither king nor parliament can command the tides.

[James]

Liberalisation is good if used in the correct manner. Many countries have gained much with their liberalisation policies. It is a bridge between the poor and the rich. Unfortunately the rich believe that liberalisation can make them poor so they do not like it.

[James]

I will read from time to time for that.

[Air Jordan Fusion]

Returning to political philosophy, not all proposals for "how we divide [the] spoils" of capitalism (so called) will have their intended effects. The economist's job is to point out which proposals have effects consistent with the goals of the proposer and which do not. The economist's job is to tell the King, the mouse, and lion that neither king nor parliament can command the tides.

[Air Jordan Fusion]

Liberalisation is good if used in the correct manner. Many countries have gained much with their liberalisation policies. It is a bridge between the poor and the rich. Unfortunately the rich believe that liberalisation can make them poor so they do not like it.