Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On the Origins of Classical Liberalism
Some argue that classical liberalism (now conservatism), as a philosophy, began in the Enlightenment (late 17th century into the 18th century) with the works of thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Bastiat, and Hume. As Friedrich Hayek categorized it, classical liberalism had a French and British branch.
Conservatism, according to this narrative, was rather a unique and radical idea in comparison to all previous philosophies. In other words, what the English did in the Glorious Revolution was the result of a new Protestant paradigm shift from the old and defunct schools of thought which permeated a still predominantly Catholic Continent.
Usually such a movement in the “Enlightenment” is pitted as rational Protestants in England and the Netherlands, along with more secular French and German thinkers, against the superstitious and ritualistic Catholics from Spain and France. As if such areas were entrenched in some permanent medieval paradigm.
I find such a narrative to be antiquated and lacking in detail or support. The roots of classical liberalism are to be traced (obviously in Judeo-Christian writings, the Bible not being the least) in thought to the works of Aristotle (his Politics) then to Augustine (City of God), to Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica), but they were formulated and codified not in the Enlightenment but rather in early 16th-century Spain, with the School of Salamanca.
The School of Salamanca was a group of Jesuit/Dominican thinkers that more or less followed in the Thomist tradition (Scholastics) and their scholarly focus was generally deployed to understanding the various issues in the context that Spain found itself in as an imperial nation in the early 16th century with the unification of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain and its conquests in the New World.
This meant that they dealt with the issue of the humanity of American Indians (do they have souls?), the value of money (all that bullion), the human condition itself (where does sovereignty come from?), the free market (trade across a vast colonial empire), and international law (just wars and treaties).
From the beginning, with the school’s founder Francisco de Vitoria, this group of thinkers more or less made the argument of classical liberalism. They asserted that even the native Americans were humans worthy of dignity. That government’s legitimacy was founded in the will of those under it in a contractual manner, the opposite of the English theory at the time which posited Divine Right (as the king was also head of the Anglican Church).
Free trade was seen as a moral good, as it was the use of free will to the benefit of yourself and your fellow man (thus increasing the bonds of community among all). Value in goods was also subjective (and relied on scarcity), and this meant that only free allocation of goods and services could create efficient outcomes (and was the natural result of said free will).
The concept of usury was undone by the time theory of value posited by Martín de Azpilcueta. The concept of private property being a right of man was posited by Diego de Covarrubias y Leyva, entailing that one had the right to the fruits of that property. These thinkers also devised the concept of just war. To summarize, their theory was that war was supposed to be used to prevent greater evils.
This meant that war ought to occur in order to prevent a greater war, to depose unjust enemies (a government that represses the natural rights of humans), and when it was possible (as a form of charity) to establish some form of peace in areas without structure. In terms of humanity, the school argued that all humans (Christian and non-Christian) had inherent rights that came with our humanity (Vitoria called it ius gentium, the law of all people), and this was the foundation of international law.
In short, such a school formulated classical liberalism (conservatism as we know it today). All humans have an inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the state is supposed to act in a way that does not impede upon such but rather protects it from foreign and native coercion and fraudulence. Free trade is a natural effect of our free will and is the best means of enriching ourselves and our communities.
Thus conservatism was not some radical break from precedent that occurred in the late 17th century, but rather a philosophical tradition already developing in Europe (and arguably had been developing for many centuries). It was finally given its best example in 1787, with the creation of the US constitution, which better exemplified the promise of the Declaration of Independence (classical liberalism). That all men are created equal in the eyes of their creator, and that they have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Published in General
Have you not seen the statistics on the disintegration of families?
Are you unaware of the numbers of divorced and never-married single parents ?
Are you not concerned about the high numbers of kids in foster care?
Does the disturbance of the institution of marriage not bear on this discussion?
Yes, but that doesn’t mean there is a cause and effect relationship between Gay Marriage and Marriage Disintegration.
It isn’t like everyone who get a divorce is coming out of the closet.
The State did not establish a definition of marriage.
The State established laws that supported marriage, using the definition inherited from ancient days.
Now it is the Left and the Libertarians, who have come un-moored from the roots of western civilization, who are pushing hard to bring about societal collapse.
Societal collapse is already well under way for some segments of American society. Look and learn.
There is a cause and effect between our societal definition of what marriage is and what it is intended for, and the number of couples who will avail themselves of that institution.
You have no idea of the potential for unintended consequences that may result from this re-definition. You are unconcerned about potential harms in your haste to comfort same-sex couples.
You may be described as well-meaning.
You are not being conservative. You are not being pragmatic. You show no understanding of human nature, but you are bound to go messing with foundational human institutions.
There is a cause and effect between our societal definition of what marriage is and what it is intended for, and the number of couples who will avail themselves of that institution.
You have no idea of the potential for unintended consequences that may result from this re-definition. You are unconcerned about potential harms in your haste to comfort same-sex couples.
You may be described as well-meaning.
You are not being conservative. You are not being pragmatic. You show no understanding of human nature, but you are bound to go messing with foundational human institutions.
A battle for society needs to happen in Society, not the halls of State. That is what distinguishes Classical Liberalism from Conservatism. The recognition that if you can’t convince Society to voluntarily accept your culture, you can’t just turn around and demand the state makes them accept it. Otherwise you have no way of really knowing what is true and what is demanded to be true.
“Some men say the earth is flat.
Some men say the earth is round.
But if it is flat. Could Parliament make it round?
And if it round. Could the kings command flatten?”
-St. Thomas More
The Left started the battle. Libertarians joined the battle on the side of the Left.
We now have had the battle abruptly ended by a Court that has made a ruling that is founded on poor logic and on antagonism towards the Christian roots of our society.
We will be finding out what is true and what is not true.
It will not be pleasant.
I am not Conservative, and so we will not agree on the State’s role on this issue.
My point is more to say that Classical Liberalism’s more direct descendant is Libertarianism. Since the history of Classical Liberalism is the history of expunging the state from establishing religious and societal norms.
A few million? Have there been over a million marriages of same-sex couples?
Just last June the Pew Forum was counting fewer than 200,000:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/how-many-same-sex-married-couples-in-the-u-s-maybe-170000/
There was a great deal of disagreement among libertarians on the matter, with a handful agreeing with SoCons, some agreeing that SSM should be legally imposed, some that it wasn’t necessary but should be supported through legislation/amendment, and many more saying that government should have no involvement in marriage at all.
With some consistency, however, I don’t think libertarians cared as much about SSM as did SoCons, and that the two groups were mutually incredulous at the others’ take.
No.
Classical Liberalism promoted pluralism, not irreligion.
Oh, dear God. Five un-elected justices established the (new) societal norms. You are making the case against yourself.
I assume it raised sharply after the SCOTUS Ruling, but estimates say that about %5-10 of the population is Gay. That is what I made my statement based on.
I do not recall any aid that SoCons received from Libertarians on this issue. I do recall Libertarians joining the Left on this issue.
Perhaps I am just not aware of all the Libertarians who helped to try to resist the onslaught of the Left in promotion of Same-sex “Marriage.”
You really believe that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 people are gay? If you watch HGtV, you’d think 50% of Americans are gay. If you live in Provincetown, you might even be right.
You are assuming that the State must either declare Gay Marriage Legitimate or Illegitimate. I prefer it be left to society and individuals to make that decision.
That is the principal of Pluralism, and it is why I believe Classical Liberalism has more in common with Libertarianism than Conservatism.
I did say “a handful.” Mollie Hemingway prominently among them.
Folks, it’s late and I’m going to bed shortly. I would encourage others to do the same.
I think he is saying that Libertarians were never very much interested in Marriage. To the degree that they were, the majority were either for legalization or privatization.
I think Libertarians always cared much more about Drug Legalization, since we perceive a more material cost on the people disaffected by the Drug War.
At the same time, SoCons have never been as actively Pro-Drug War.
No. You are assuming the State must either declare SSM legitimate or illegitimate. I am saying the state has an obligation to uphold parameters society has long held for marriage for the protection and benefit of family formation — particularly for the most vulnerable members of society — pregnant women and children.
I am saying the State has nothing to declare about same-sex coupling at all, one way or another. My position would leave same sex couples alone. Yours demands all of society’s acknowledgement of a fiction.
We SoCons are not the aggressors.
The definition of the institution of marriage is indeed in G-d’s realm. However, Christians do not have an exclusive claim to a definition of marriage that limits the institution to one man and one woman.
The pluralism that is promoted by Classical Liberalism is content to use the common definition of marriage that features this limit. The common definition is shared by Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and heretical Christians. It is shared by practicing and non-practicing Jews. It is shared by Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Pagans and everyone else, including Atheists.
Until ten minutes ago.
Now the irreligious Left is rushing us into uncharted territory, determined to probe the full extent of the unintended consequences of this rash experiment, and you are along for the ride, fully on-board as we tilt swiftly into the darkness ahead.
I agree whole heartedly. As usual, the Left instigated an attack and — also as usual — declared any tactics justified by the ends.
‘night folks.
I miss Mollie. I was forgetting about her. Thanks.
She stood out as a Libertarian who understood the extent of the potential bad outcomes, and who also resisted SSM on the basis of the opening it would provide for assaults by the Left on religious liberty.
As near as I know, Mollie is unique among libertarians.
Tom’s asleep. Now we can take the gloves off! ;-)
Those are bad estimates that have long been de-bunked. Better-quality estimates put the percentage of gay Americans between 3 and 4 percent of the population, and even that has been shown to be on the high side.
If you want to come up with ballpark estimates, a better starting point would be 2.5 %. So 8 million, maybe. I would guess that a high number for the potential number of marriages among this group to be around one million, total, and I think that is a top-side value.
We can debate for eternity over whether the State has that obligation.
It doesn’t.
But that is not the point. My point is that Classical Liberalism was first a Pluralist alternative to Paternalism, and as such would support the Pluralist notion today that the state should not establish marriage as one man and one woman, just as the state ought not have established the Catholic Church as the one true Church in Locke’s day.
If you believe the State has a role to protect the definition of marriage, as the state Locke opposed wanted to establish the Catholic Church as the definition of truth, then you are not the most direct ideological descendant of Locke, Smith and Jefferson.
If you leave marriage to “society and individuals” then you cannot have any law that affects marriage. Be careful what you wish for.
This position is one we have seen advocated for by libertarians here at Ricochet. I think it is a foolish position, one that invites social chaos.
This position is not required by the pluralism that is advocated by Classical Liberalism.
It is opposed on conservative grounds, simply because it is a major societal change made without study or investigation into the potential downsides.
Is State an Agent of Society, or is Society an Agent of the State?
Locke and the Classical Liberals core belief is in the Former, that is why they are distinguished from the Paternalists.
If you want the State to guide Society. Don’t get upset when the State decides it wants Society to be more Progressive, and imposes on religious liberty to make that happen. You set the precedent for that authority of the State.
Your appeal to Classical Liberalism is based on a faulty understanding of pluralism.