Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Norman P. Barry - On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (1986, Palgrave Macmillan)

    Uploaded by

    Süleyman Ulukuş
    4 views113 pages

    Original Title

    [] Norman P. Barry - On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (1986, Palgrave Macmillan)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views113 pages

    Norman P. Barry - On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (1986, Palgrave Macmillan)

    Uploaded by

    Süleyman Ulukuş

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 113
    By the same author HAYEK’S SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY ‘AN INTRODUCTION TO MODERN POLITICAL THEORY , On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism Norman P. Barry ; Professor of Politics : The University of Buckingham (© NermanP ary 986 tis revi. Norpradacton, copy or ranemision fi aon ay te made iho Sse pe, REE pct my et apd ‘ih he provisos othe Cope Ae 9S os sone ‘ht pbaton may te ade oma nee ‘Si cum for dose Ft pubis 86 Tue Mac SPs emt, ng Hampi Ra 2S “weir Sg rota Hong Kang EES Lary Caloging in Pabicaton Data iy Noma Prat tala ad eam pice 231 snare ‘sina ae, tt é rs at. ~ To W.T.B. and A.EM. | \ Contents Preface Introduction Hume, Smithand Utlitarianism conomism: The Chicago Schoal of Economic Liberalism ‘The Austian Schoo! James Buchanan and Contracaran Liberalism ‘The Ethical Problems of ndividualism Ayn Rand and Egoism RobertNozickand the Minimal State Anarcho-Capitaism Conclusion Notes Index vi a 10 12 tt 192 7 an Preface ‘This book has been a long ie in the making. My interest in the _general problems of classiealiberaism and Hbertarianism was first {aroused in the mid-1970s when I began work on the social and ‘economic philosophy of Friedrich Hayek. Athoughe was, ands is the most well-known of contemporary classical iberals quickly realised that he was one of many writers who had kept the flag of individualism flying during the hey-dayof the social democratic snd semicollecivist political and economic consensus. I seemed imn- portant then, and seven more so now, to presenta general account tthe various philosophical strands that go to make up the Hera tradition Taso noticed that despite many similares in policy prescription ‘he prominent classealiberasdifered greatly over the fundamen tal theoretical premises on which these policies were founded. ‘There was also the problem of the diference between dassical liberalism and ibertaranism. Thus, although weters such as Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Robert [Novick and Murray Rothbard are usually put together as if they constituted some intellectual monolith, this description is grossly ‘misleading. Furthermore, the diferences that ae easily detectable {ntheir works reflect some of theoldestand deepest problemsinthe istry of political thought. (My frst attempt at documenting and analysing the variety of philesophical foundations that have been used for liberalism was published as an article in the British Journal of Polital Science in 1983 ‘Much ofthe work in the following pages is # detailed elaboration of, the points madein this article "However, much of the material in the Journal article was derived from contemporary sources, and I thought the book would be seriously incomplete without some historical dimension to the subjec. Hence, the chapter on the eighteenth-century sources of classical beralism, Nevertheless, this is inno sense an historical ‘work, It should be seen more asa collection of essays concentrating ‘ona particular theme. The abiding importance of Hume and Smith ‘is that they set the agenda for much of the contemporary deba about classical liberalism. More so than, I hink, Locke, What Thave : tee Wd por then, are he analy and concept problems rang onda heught thee oe ate Ee Soper on suchocaptase nt ooh ee ee, beta use gg in oats a ee ete rtens fe ann eee Sera inden anac ae a a Sled in te and geen wrke sn iat as iB eoprion ose ‘ne ton il nut spi the reader, This is the see sale on ee ne ee eee ase"Fen Eve rte x ge apo Hea a ecsinsand mast oes eet ant at thought of wing pain on at gee Se coi that iano pore ‘ur appt over tc troyensis dicate work nea eee ae on eal hugh and ene ne Soa et Soup nen eh roel Thc ered pape overhead ine seve a these dctnes some anahie Daenedas ‘so sd be pod out hat 1am es concerned with smn poly thn wiht pc hough Sie we rsenptons of chs Intmis and ieee a ee sr tostaetec he see The en ee Su banymenennelpanys Inne te indno dead snatecl theca Shap.and poli, the iade yc or he quate nol eco he oronent Si ses nen se ea ae apie tut tea pay tomas i iG ould kee mention th ll ‘tok Joho Gray, jon Barton, Marin Reker Jeremy Shem, Stephen Littechild, Hannes Gisurson, Michael Jane an Ces ame Aongh ow Ses pope dy lilo he manuscript, and are no way responite orien, ‘omssons and misnterpreatons, have fered mach from hee Published ad unpatched contibtions otha reply expanding Ere ofschonship. Tcompletd the Buk of the mansscrpt atthe University of Buckingham. I'am extremely gett to my secretary, Sanda Gite for her thoroughness, iligence and accuracy ih pins ‘what mua have ben ificalt Ranwnten pee of work. Home er, the work began while wasat Bringher Poyecheand, a ‘mother ceasons am indebted to Barbers ADS for typing ne frst thc chapters wth her sual eficeney. NORMAN BARRY Buckighe 1 Introduction In 1962 Daniel Bell published what proved to be, albeit briefly, an influential bok, The Era of lelogy, "in which he suggested that the lemergence of 2 consensus since 1045 around certain socal values had rendered traditional ideological debate otiose, This was be- ‘cause, he claimed, in western democracies, there were no more ‘ideological bates to be fought and intellectual effort was expected tobeinvestedin the consolidation ofan existing agreed compromise rather than the construction of new Wellaschawangen. This view coincided nicely, albeit accidentally, with the conventional view of analytical philosophy thatthe inherent subjecivm of all ethical ‘nd politcal judgements made it impossible to found a political ‘theory on any philosophical principles the lack of any metaphysical persuasiveness for social and political doctrines was compensated, for by a tact agreement amongst intellectuals on the desirability of ‘one political doctrine. ln Ameria this is known asiberalisa’andin Britain and Europe, socal democracy’. “The collapse ofthis consensus hardly needs documenting and the fact that we now live in an ideologically, as well as poltealy, insecure world is a commonplace observation. Not only has the inellectual justification of political value systems become arespect= able enterprise again but certain traditional conceptions in pial Philosophy, such as natura law and natural rights and the socal Contract have been disinterred from the grave to which the Logical Positivsts had consigned them, and used once more to support divergent viewpoints. Thus the recent works of Raw, Brian Barry, NNozick and Dworkin, to name the only most eminent, has rendered that distinction between philosophy and ideology (or between ‘explanation and recommendation), which was so central to the Logical Postvists and ther successorsin philosophy and the socal sciences, somewhat tenuous, Indeed, it may also be true thatthe 1 2 (On Casi Lieraliom and Liertaranis word ideology’ hos ost some ofthe pejorative overtones thatithad during the hey-day of empiricist social scence. ‘The breakdown of the consensus was initially followed by the ‘resurgence of primarily colectvist politcal thinking either rom the “Mansi Left or the traditionalist, ant-rationalist Right, However, in the last decade or so there has been a recrudescence of individualist ‘inking orthe social and economic theory of lassical liberalism. In 1 sense, clatsial or ‘ol liberalism never died, it was temporally submerged by the ‘new liberal” or ‘socal democratic orthodoxy {andalso quietly absorbed in some parts of neocessical economics {o the point at which its identity was lost). Twentieth century ‘conomic and social theorists suchas Ludwig von Mises, Wier Ropke, Friedrich Hayek, and the Chicago School of fre market ‘Som represented, in difering ways, by Frank Knight, Henty ‘Simons, Milton Friedman and George Stiger, continued to develop their doctrines so that a body of knowledge was avalable for the [understanding of social processes on the return of more propitious {imes The recent failures of new liberalism and socal dernecracy, wowever, have not been countered with merely restatements, oF ‘ven variations, of some familiar classical liberal themes for # More ed the corrvery tat flowed the ede to cive attention ay fom hee ‘aly plausible, ethical versions oftieranaaion acti

    You might also like