Classical liberalism vs Modern liberalism

[NormATive]

Well, for one thing, European and Russian socialists were rebelling against monarchies. In the United States, the only common enemy were the banks and those who's money supplied their source - the aristocrats, and increasingly; newly minted capitalists.

Throw into the mix our uniquely American millenialist (manifest destiny is a chief tenet) inclinations, mistrust of orthodoxy (such as Roman Catholic Church), and romantic notions of "the rugged pioneer spirit" and you can see how the Federalists morphed into what ultimately became Republicans and Repulicans (ala: T Jefferson) morphed into Jacksonian Democrats.

The Republicans (later Democrats) believed in limited government and state's rights (i.e.; the right to keep and trade slaves). The Federalists (later Whigs and then Republicans) also believed in limited government, but maintained the importance of a "national" bank to help fund "internal improvements" (roads, railroad infrastructure, standing army, etc.). The Federalists were split on the issue of slavery (that's where the Whigs - then Lincoln Republicans came from), but were united on the notion of a strong, central government.

it all came to a head in the Civil War with the resulting schism that afflicts us to this day.

What we refer to as Conservatives today are what would have been Republicans (aka; Jacksonian Democrats) in the antebellum period.

What we refer to as Liberals are the descendants of the Lincoln Republicans who "meddled into the affairs of the soverign states" in order to bring about the end of slavery (a progressive idea).

Franklin Roosevelt, on the heels of the progressive movement (the culmination of millenialism and the graham cracker reformers), elevated the role of government in unprecedented ways by manipulating the value of gold, establishing a government monopoly on electric utility (TVA), and combating poverty by transferring wealth from the likes of Mellon (who, incidentally, donated his entire collection of art that was the basis of the Smithsonian - the first PUBLIC art collection in the New World) into "agencies" (most of which were subsequently repealed by Congress). His liberal "brain trust" also created Social Security.

You can very easily see from this very brief history how the enmity between "liberals" and "conservatives" evolved over time.

When we consider from whence each diversion emanates, we can see that both are grounded in solid, historic context, and thus devoid of the demonization that characterizes much of the debate these days.

NORM

[joel]

What you attribute to "Rawls" ( and no doubt others) fits very well with my own intuitive conclusions. My basic problem with "earning" as the criterion of "owning" is the difficulty of determining what (or more accurately how much) a person has "earned' by virtue of a given action or set of actions.

If a manual laborer works all day for, say, $100, it seems reasonable to say that he has earned it. If, however, a Trust Fund manager receives say 1% of the capital invested by making investment decisions on behalf of others, has he earned $10,000 by applying his intelligence, knowledge and experience to the investment of $1M? Let's say that he has. If he then invests another $1M on behalf of another client in the same way, based on the decision he made a few minutes ago, has he earned another $10,000? How about if someone then comes in with $1B to invest? Has he earned $10M? Has Bill Gates earned the $100B (or whatever it is these days) that he owns? It seems incredible that anyone, no matter how intelligent and hardworking could actually work hard enough to "earn" that amount.

And what about the children of very rich parents who are simply given huge sums of money? There is no possible argument, imo, that they have earned it. And if "earning" is the justification for "owning", then is it OK to take away all unearned money (and property).

I have no wish to debate individual cases, but the above seems to illustrate the difficulty of using "earning" as a basis of property rights.

I have also carefully avoided the use of "exploitation" or similar ideas, not because I don't think they ever apply, but because the argument works without them.

A possible answer is to say that everyone has certain rights to means (I'm using the word in the way I understand you to use it, I hope I have it right) based on no more than his/her membership of the community. What these rights entitle us to would be subject to debate of course and would depend on what was considered to be a person's basic "needs" and what means were available.

An analogy might be a family. No matter who earns the money in a family, needs are not satisfied in proportion to who earns what. One or both of the parents probably bring in the money. The children typically contribute little to nothing, even if the parents choose to make them do chores to prepare them for adult life. Nevertheless, typically everyone in the family gets what they need in terms of food, clothing, shelter, and so on. This is generally considered to be "good". Why does the perception of "good" change when it becomes a community larger than the family that is considered?

The traditional answer (e.g., from John Locke) is that you earn what you produce. But that's only the origin of property. Once someone is the rightful owner, then they also have the right to transfer title to whomever they wish. If someone wants to give a billion dollars to the person who manages their trust fund, that's up to them. If they do, then the manager receives the rightful title. So, you are right that earning is incomplete. Earning is just the origination of the title. One can also receive a title as a gift or in an exchange.

As for your question about families: Size isn't the difference. What matters is consent vs the use of force. A large group (I don't care how large) may engage together in communist living, as long as it's voluntary on the part of each person. It would be unjust to use force to stop them. But it would also be unjust for them to force others to participate with them against their will. In the family, children might be compelled, but they are dependents, not adults. It's not appropriate to treat a population of adults as children (and, presumably, as if you, uniquely, were their parent).

Also I argue that parents have a particular obligation to provide for their offspring. This is not a universal claim against everyone or "society", but a particular, limited claim against particular individuals, due to the particular (and limited/temporary) circumstances. One does not have a right to something merely by needing it. That premise leads to logical contradictions.

[joel]

NormATive, much of what you say, I am aware of. Let me add some of my own understanding to what you are saying.

In the 1800's the Whigs/Republicans as you say grew out of the Federalists. They favored a central bank, inflation, public works, and protectionism--in short, were holding onto mercantilist traditions from feudalistic Brittan/Europe. They were also mainly protestants who thought they needed to save people by force, by enforcing morality (e.g., banning alcohol), enforcing protestantism (e.g., via introducing compulsory public schooling), paternalism.

The Jacksonian Democrats (from Jeffersonians, from anti-federalists, from classical liberalism & the radical Brittish Whigs of the 1700s) were mostly Catholics & Lutherans who favored personal liberty, and hard money. On the other hand, they were split on slavery, which resulted in the Republican Lincoln gaining control for the Civil War.

There was a wide difference between the two parties until the 1890s. The Democrats were then becoming dominant, and to keep from being a permanent minority, the Republicans shifted centrist. At the same time, due to several factors, after Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan and his followers gained control of the Democratic party. The Bryanites were pietist protestants more in favor of protectionism, enforced personal morality, etc, like the Republicans had been. This alienated the more (classically) liberal base, and the two parties became both centrist and very similar to each other.

It was out of this situation that progressivism arose in both parties. This was a movement of throwing out the "old" and "traditional", and placing faith in scientism--the idea that new 'scientific' ideas for centrally planning society would bring great improvements. Ideas came from socialism (and similar central planning ideas like syndicallism/corporatism) and built upon the big-government ideas that the Republicans had already been advocating.

The Jacksonian Democrat (or liberal/libertarian) principles largely disappeared from the scene for a few decades (though academic progress was made during this time by a few, such as the Austrian economists), but then began to grow again in opposition to the world wars and the New Deal, and gained some prominence and influence--the "Old Right"--in the Republican party. They were small-government and opposed to military intervention. Then, as I understand it, the Republican party switched from non-interventionist to militaristic with Barry Goldwater.

While the Democratic party has mostly followed from FDR.

Franklin Roosevelt, on the heels of the progressive movement (the culmination of millenialism and the graham cracker reformers)...

What does millennialism have to do with anything?
And what were graham cracker reformers?

[Alien]

The traditional answer (e.g., from John Locke) is that you earn what you produce. But that's only the origin of property. Once someone is the rightful owner, then they also have the right to transfer title to whomever they wish. If someone wants to give a billion dollars to the person who manages their trust fund, that's up to them. If they do, then the manager receives the rightful title. So, you are right that earning is incomplete. Earning is just the origination of the title. One can also receive a title as a gift or in an exchange.

Interesting. If what I say about earning is correct, then there is a lot of property that is sold, exchanged and gifted illegitimately, because it wasn't correctly "earned".

As for your question about families: Size isn't the difference. What matters is consent vs the use of force. A large group (I don't care how large) may engage together in communist living, as long as it's voluntary on the part of each person. It would be unjust to use force to stop them. But it would also be unjust for them to force others to participate with them against their will. In the family, children might be compelled, but they are dependents, not adults. It's not appropriate to treat a population of adults as children (and, presumably, as if you, uniquely, were their parent).

I was mostly comparing the attitude toward the family and other groups. Equity within a family is generally admired. Even though parents are considered to have an obligation to look after their children, that would be satisfied by giving them all their basic needs. However, parents are also expected (or at least considered delinquent if they don't) to deal with their children fairly. For example, giving all the children their basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, education and so on and then giving only one child a luxury standard in all these areas (maybe paying for private education and college for one, and sending the rest to public schools with no college) would be considered unfair. Society's providing just that kind of discrimination is considered to be fine, however.

Also I argue that parents have a particular obligation to provide for their offspring. This is not a universal claim against everyone or "society", but a particular, limited claim against particular individuals, due to the particular (and limited/temporary) circumstances. One does not have a right to something merely by needing it. That premise leads to logical contradictions.

Partly answered above. We may have a different definition of "right" here, so read carefully. :-) I don't think there is such a thing as a right that exists independently of some kind of legislation or similar process. Example: we are supposed to have the "right" to life. Consider a person who has fallen off a high building. He's currently passing the 50th floor. What right to life does he have? You can say he has it, but what use is it to him?

So, what I'm saying is that I think it would be a good thing if society granted certain rights to all its members. And yes, one of those rights would be having basic needs satisfied.

I'm going to set out a couple of my own ideas. I'm going to be moving beyond the main subject of this thread, so feel free to ignore them. :-)

I consider that the ultimate judgment of the desirability of a given system comes from it's effects. We can put together a social system that is justified by some philosophical principles in its entirety, but if it leads to unwanted effects then something is wrong with it. My observation is that the principles you are advocating, as implemented at different times, have led to a huge disparity in wealth and power between members of the societies involved. I consider that to be undesirable, both from a moral and practical viewpoint. (If you don't agree with that, then we won't get any further, as it is fundamental). So, something is wrong, either with the principles or their implementation.

Throughout history, people have had this instinctive reaction, and tried to invent and implement alternative systems that would "fix" it. So far, these laudable attempts seem to have failed, partly or wholly. So I'm not advocating any particular system (though I like the European systems that seem to be getting into trouble currently, hopefully temporarily). What is basic, imo, is that we admit that something is wrong, and try to "invent" something better, maybe examining what has worked best in the past and considering what didn't work well, and why in both cases.

Another "theory" of mine is that all political systems boil down to the same thing. They are all essentially the struggle between "alpha" people (those with a drive to power) and the rest of us. The alpha's talent for manipulating the world to their own benefit inevitably causes the relative disadvantage of everyone else. If it goes too far, the others don't like it, and try to fight back, but "fighting back" is an essentially alpha characteristic, so if the "revolution" succeeds there is just another set of alphas in charge. I could go on, but it's all kind of depressing.

[NormATive]

NormATive, much of what you say, I am aware of. Let me add some of my own understanding to what you are saying...

Thanks for your excellent completion to my timeline! It's nice to meet someone in this Fora who actually understands history.

What does millennialism have to do with anything?
And what were graham cracker reformers?

Protestant millenialism in the antebellum era posited the idea that Christ would return and establish his earthly kingdom within their lifetime. Thus, it was their duty to "prepare the way" by beginning to establish G-d's kingdom in America. The Mormons took this idea to its logical conclusion with the introduction of John Smith's revelation.

This notion of America as a promised land (see - this is where Smith got the idea) had its political counterpoint in the concept of Manifest Destiny gleaned from the writings of Alexis de Toqueville (ca.1830s) in describing America as "exceptional."

The graham cracker reformers were those (predominantly protestants) who sought to reform the American citizen through healthy food (graham crackers), clean living (no alcohol - Carrie Nation, etc.), and self improvement (Alcoholics Anonymous). Roosevelt's New Deal and Great Society were the Progressives version of self improvement.

NORM

[joel]

Interesting. If what I say about earning is correct, then there is a lot of property that is sold, exchanged and gifted illegitimately, because it wasn't correctly "earned".

Oh?

Equity within a family is generally admired.

Classical liberals / libertarians do not say that various kinds of equity aren't good or aren't to be admired in society. It's just that when it comes to the use of force, you can't and shouldn't enforce all kinds of equality. Enforcing one kind of equality (e.g., equality before the law) conflicts with enforcing another kind of equality (e.g., equality of means). You have to choose between them. Classical liberals held that equality before the law is the only moral and equitable use of force. That doesn't mean that equity of means must be neglected, just that it must be pursued through means other than force.

Even though parents are considered to have an obligation to look after their children, that would be satisfied by giving them all their basic needs. However, parents are also expected (or at least considered delinquent if they don't) to deal with their children fairly. For example, giving all the children their basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, education and so on and then giving only one child a luxury standard in all these areas (maybe paying for private education and college for one, and sending the rest to public schools with no college) would be considered unfair. Society's providing just that kind of discrimination is considered to be fine, however.

In this analogy, you are thinking in terms of some entitiy called "society" "giving" a person something. There is no such entity. And means don't magically come into being such that such an entity could give them out to provide everything for everyone. Your analogy impossibly pictures everyone as passive recipients of provision from this (magical, all powerful) entity.

I don't yet have children. But I can suppose that I had two teenage children. One takes initiative, gets a job (or spends time creating things of value), and saves up. The second either remains idle or blows everything immediately, saving nothing. In the end, my two children have a (perhaps huge) disparity in ownership of means. No way would I even this out by taking (really, stealing) from the first child to give to the second. That would be unfair and unjust. Their unequal ownership of means in this case is not unfair. (Thus disparity of means is not necessarily unfair.)

It would also be unfair of me (and probably damaging to both children) to even out their disparity by my giving more out of my income to the second child than to the first so that the idle child has the same amount as the productive child. Thus any means available to me to even out their disparity would in fact be unfair.

This applies to my family. Why wouldn't it also apply to others?

My observation is that the principles you are advocating, as implemented at different times, have led to a huge disparity in wealth and power between members of the societies involved.

My observation is that the past 100 years or so of the results of the progressive era and massively interventionist governments have led to a huge disparity in wealth and power between members of the societies involved.

Another "theory" of mine is that all political systems boil down to the same thing. They are all essentially the struggle between "alpha" people (those with a drive to power) and the rest of us. The alpha's talent for manipulating the world to their own benefit inevitably causes the relative disadvantage of everyone else. If it goes too far, the others don't like it, and try to fight back, but "fighting back" is an essentially alpha characteristic, so if the "revolution" succeeds there is just another set of alphas in charge. I could go on, but it's all kind of depressing.

I hear you. As Mencken said, the state "still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men." And Thomas Paine wrote, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
But this is the message of the classical liberals: that people manipulating power to their own benefit is bad. A state, if it is to be any good, must use power not for its own benefit, but for the benefit of the people. And it also implies that it must not use the power to benefit any interests particularly, but must treat everyone equally: thus equality before the law.

Oppenheimer wrote that there are two and only two means available to men for achieving their ends. The first is the "economic means": producing and exchanging goods. The second is to appropriate the goods produced by others against their will. This latter he called the "political means". Nock described how history is one long struggle between the two. The first is social, the latter is anti-social. A shift of 'political power' from one person or group to another does not fix the problem. Rather the problem is in the political power itself, which we must diminish or abolish, in favor of 'social' or 'economic' means.

[Rick H.]

An analogy might be a family. No matter who earns the money in a family, needs are not satisfied in proportion to who earns what. One or both of the parents probably bring in the money. The children typically contribute little to nothing, even if the parents choose to make them do chores to prepare them for adult life. Nevertheless, typically everyone in the family gets what they need in terms of food, clothing, shelter, and so on. This is generally considered to be "good". Why does the perception of "good" change when it becomes a community larger than the family that is considered?

It seems that the relational context conditions all theories and judgments. If that is so, then we start there. Labeling works against that. We can discuss whether liberty has a positive quality to it without putting individual responses into a hopper marked "liberal", "fundamental" or "classical". Joel's point that

Without liberty, you can't do anything, whether good or evil. You aren't a moral agent. Thus liberty, like being, is not neutral but good.

makes good sense to me, but it also indicates that liberty possesses a positive quality--that of being. From there we can ask what the nature of that being can rightly be called. Unless, of course, the discussion is meant achieve a political advantage rather than simple clarification of truth.

It appears to me that some sort of empowerment for the human being results from natural liberty. That liberty can be infringed upon leaving the observer to think that the return to liberty experience by the removal of the infringment actually constitutes the liberty though it does not.

[joel]

An analogy might be a family. No matter who earns the money in a family, needs are not satisfied in proportion to who earns what.

I discussed the analogy of the family in my post immediately preceding yours.

The main problem is that it asks one to treat the adult population as dependent children.

The other problem is that even children may have private property (and earn income), and it would be unjust to forcibly redistribute or collectivize their property among the family members.

Without liberty, you can't do anything, whether good or evil. You aren't a moral agent. Thus liberty, like being, is not neutral but good.

makes good sense to me, but it also indicates that liberty possesses a positive quality--that of being.

It is a negative concept. It the absence of something.
E.g., if someone forces you at gunpoint to do what they say, then to that degree you aren't a moral agent (your choices being restricted to obey the command or die).
Liberty in this case would be the absence of the coercion at gunpoint.

What has being is your capacity (when not coerced) to do all kinds of things. The distinction made is between your capacity and the absence of infringement upon your capacity. The latter is liberty ("freedom from").

[roadwalker]

I think you are simplifying things to a large degree. There has never been such a thing as 'pure classical liberalism' as you define it, nor could there be beyond a hermit sitting in a hut with a shotgun. Where government (which necessarily means some constraints) has not existed for a time, the result is anarchy and chaos, followed by violent struggles for power, and eventually leading to the rise of a strongman or dictator. The classic example of this is the French revolution which destroyed the government and led to the reign of terror, which ended with the rise of Napoleon. The only question here is how to provide for the 'common good' vs. how to protect individual freedom. It's not like one day we had very little government and the next day we had a lot-- it has grown in bits and pieces, and in each case a compelling case could be made for why it was necessary.

In providing for the 'common good,' what modern liberals are recognizing (and modern conservatives deny) is that technology and society have changed a great deal, and these changes have to be included in what we consider 'the common good.' The notion of taxation to pay for 'the common good,' is not new at all. All societies have expected their members to contribute to, for example, the maintenance of armies (without which the potential for damage to the community would be obvious-- even if the individual escaped unscathed.) Later technological and societal advances led to the creation of governments (somebody had to direct the armies, along with diplomacy, justice, and other functions-- and they generally were not expected to split their time between government and growing all their own food,) and such technological functions of a government as to build and maintain roads, sewers and courthouses. This in turn led to more government, such as police and the establishment of prisons, all of which cost money and correspondingly resulted in taxation.

Where we make the jump to what could be called modern liberalism is probably in the mid-nineteenth century, during the industrial revolution which led (starting in 1884 in the U.S., earlier in other countries) to compulsory public education. In past generations the idea of indentured servitude or apprenticeship was sufficient to provide an adequate supply of skilled craftsmen, while universities served the same purpose for government officials and some merchants (who were earlier set on that road by being taught literacy at home or at private schools-- this of course also maintained a rigid class structure, in practice almost as rigid as the Indian caste system.)

Without mass production a master or even a corporation could hire the people they needed to train, and then train them to carry out the trade. Literacy was not needed for most jobs. But with the industrial revolution there was a sudden need for literate workers (at least literate enough to be able to carry out written instructions without the need to explain it individually to hundreds or thousands of workers.) It would have been impractical for industrialists to hire hundreds of young children, train them to read over a period of years and then finally have them go to work as adults. The solution was education for all-- and it was paid for by the government, and the government paid for it with taxation. Of course adding hundreds of thousands or even millions of schoolteachers to the ranks of government workers (even at low salaries) massively increased the size of state governments (and the taxation to go with them.) But there was little choice here-- other countries like Germany and England were doing the same thing and had the U.S. not made the move towards compulsory public education there is little doubt that we would have become a technological backwater. Further, in urban centers people no longer had the skills nor the space to be able to grow enough food so maintaining a substance level 'grow your own' economy was no longer possible.

While this massive expansion of state government was going on, the federal government was slowly expanding as well, adding such features as maintaining a national park system and food inspectors (again, for the public good-- both courtesy of Teddy Roosevelt.) Another feature of the federal government which became necessary was regulations. When large industrialists in various industries either engaged in turf wars with each other or engaged in collusion the result tended to be higher prices for the public. So, paying a little more in taxes to protect the public from gouging was a choice, sort of like buying insurance. Regulation later expanded to protect the public from unsafe products, unsafe workplaces and eventually environmental hazards (as the health effects of substances like Mercury, asbestos and Lead became more widely understood.) All of this was in the 'public good' but it all required more government to achieve and more taxes to pay for.

In the 1920's the main expansion of the federal government had to do with the expansion of crime fighting duties. For example, the Capone organization in Chicago overwhelmed (not to mention infiltrated) local crime suppression offices like the Chicago police, and other similar situations occurred in cities like New York, Boston and Buffalo. Federal intervention became necessary in these places. There were also criminal enterprises which crossed state lines (again, putting it into the realm of federal coordination and enforcement) as well as the growth of communist, fascist and other extremist organizations that the government wanted to keep a tab on. So government organizations like the FBI (to spy on domestic threats) and OSS (to spy on foreign threats) were given sway over a whole new range of duties and massively expanded. Again, at the price of more taxes.

The depression in the 1930's overwhelmed the private system of charities which previously had provided for the poor. With one out of four Americans out of work, there were simply not enough churches and charities (or people who could donate to the churches and charities) to feed all of them (it became a math problem.) With people eating weeds just to survive (and some who did not survive) the government created the New Deal programs to both 1) care for the unemployed by giving them work, and 2) build the nation's infrastructure. For example, my wife's grandfather worked for the CC's as a young man. Without it, he might have starved. Instead he got a job, and the government, for the price of a meal got trails and roads carved into Zion's and Bryce Canyon national monuments, and also gave him an education, as after WWII he made a career as a heavy equipment operator using skills he learned in the CC's. This of course cost a lot of money and added a new definition of 'public good'-- that the government should help people who are unemployed or destitute to survive. This has since gone through a number of incarnations, some better than others (i.e. the permanent dole created by the Great Society, or the EITC which is a back-door form of welfare created in order to end the dole by returning the idea of welfare back to the work requirement embodied by the New Deal. Ironically, when Newt Gingrich, by creating the EITC in 1996 got people to work for their welfare, essentially did the same thing as FDR did. But when FDR did it, it was 'liberal' and when Newt did it, it was 'conservative.' So, which is it?

Either way, the expansion of social services embodied in the New Deal (and providing for the destitute has since expanded into providing Social Security for those too old to work anymore, providing medicaid for the destitute and medicare for the elderly, along with support services for groups like battered women, abused children and the physically or mentally disabled. But again, it came with a price tag in taxes.

The New Deal ended rather abruptly-- on December 7, 1941. Or, as FDR put it, "Dr. New Deal has been replaced by Dr. Win-the-War." Unemployment was no longer a problem-- millions of men joined the armed forces, and women went to work to fill vacancies in factories producing war material. The war certainly cost money-- but after the war America did not quit spending the money. Instead we came out of it with the world's premier military machine, and despite a challenge during the Cold War we have maintained military supremecy. One could certainly argue that we have gotten involved militarily in places we have no business or need to be involved in, and that this is costing us more money (and I have made that argument) but at the same time, America has, for better or worse, become the world's number one target, so not spending the money to maintain a large military carries other risks-- so again, 'for the common good,' but at a price in taxes.

Now, as a Liberal I would ask you, given that the overall rate of taxation for most Americans is now the lowest in over fifty years, and you still have your right to live and pursue happiness (in fact choices for doing so tend to be broader under liberals than under conservatives-- compare Nevada to Utah to see the contrast) the only real injury you can point to is, yes, the taxes for all this 'public good.' But if you do I would ask you this: 1) isn't it just a matter of where to set the line (given that 0% taxation = anarchy = the Mad Max scenario of no working government that we see during the reign of terror, and 100% taxation = communism,) a matter that will always be debated, and 2) if you want to pull the line back, which of the aforementioned expansions of government would you propose we get rid of?

Like I said, it took a couple of hundred years for the government to grow to where it is now, so you would have trouble pointing to a day when we just jumped from 'classical' to 'modern' liberalism.