Monday, February 13, 2006

The Legend of Liberty and the not-at-all-Minarchist Cat

Andy has written a long ripost to LibertyCat's piece about 'What is Liberalism?'. To which Rob Knight over at LiberalReview has written an excellent reply - he summarises what is at the core of the disagreement between 'economic' liberals (the 'Orange Bookers') and 'social' liberals (the Beveridge Group) in the Liberal Democrats when he writes:

Many see economic liberalism as somehow linked to "big business". This is flat out wrong, a misconception that stems (in my view) from the Thatcher government.... I think that the whole question of economic liberalism has become weighed down with emotive language and knee-jerk reactions which far outweight the differences at stake.

I don't think that there are any concrete, ideological differences. The devil is in the detail. There is a great deal of misunderstanding over what economic liberalism is. This is due to the popular use of terms like 'neo-liberalism' and 'liberalisation of markets' (describing complete removal of all economic legislation), as well as the lingering influence of Thatcherism. It is understandable why many self-defining 'social liberals' in the Libs respond so negatively when they think that Margaret Thatcher's liberal children are walking amongst them. Andy's misunderstanding is clear from:

But I don't think that they [socialists are] wrong about unfettered economic competition... To subscribe to unreconstructed economic liberalism is in my view a very unhealthy move, and it perturbs me to see quite so many people seemingly making this argument that Lib Dems are people who believe in liberalism both personally and economically, but see the personal bit as more important. In my case, it is precisely because I believe in personal liberties that I oppose economic liberalism in its uglier forms... Now? Cameron, if he actually believed what he projects, would probably be closer to my views than some of the people I see calling themselves Liberals in our party [my emphasis added]

I agree with the sentiments of Andy's post. Yet I helped edit the article Andy is critiquing. Andy is not arguing with economic liberals. People who believe in both social freedom of the individual and the unfettered operation of the market are not economic liberals. They belong to a tradition including anarcho-capitalists and minarchists. Margaret Thatcher fell into this tradition economically but was not socially liberal.

Liberals believe that all concentrations of power are bad - be they the monopoly power of business, state power or the dictatorship of the majority. This is summarised in Lord Acton's much corrupted dictum that 'power corrupts'. The unfettered operation of the market can easily lead to monopoly, corruption, inefficiency and, in extremis, the sort of corporate dystopias envisaged in films like Blade Runner or computer games like Syndicate (which I remember from my Amiga 1200). Liberals try to prevent concentrations of power by devolving and redistributing power so no group, institution or individual in society ever becomes too powerful and can arbitrarily restrict the freedom of individuals. The disagreement between the self-declared 'left' and 'right' of the party is about degree - which groups in society have more power now? The state? Business? Civil society (e.g. trade unions, pressure groups)? There is no question of handing all power to the state and interest groups (socialism) nor by keeping it stored in traditional/worthy institutions (conservatism) nor handing it all to business (anarcho-capitalism/minarchism).

Short summary - split in Liberal Democrat party greatly exaggerated. Return home and play computer games.

posted by Femme de Resistance @ 6:53 am  

4 Comments:

  • At 12:36 pm , Blogger Andy said...

    Thanks for the commments. As both you and Rob Knight have made clearer to me, my quarrel is not with all of economic liberalism. Indeed, I think I may have misinterpreted the bits of LibertyCat's post that I quoted. However, as panakea's comments both here and on my own post show, there do seem to be those who regard all urges to legislate as illiberal, and don't seem to see the very sensible qualifications that Rob, you and I require in building a view of the world based in liberalism.

    Thanks to all those who have responded to the post. I was partially being deliberately provocative with the title, of course to be consistent then a liberal must always be liberal in all areas in general. My focus is simply where there develop conflicts between one set of rights and freedoms and another. In that, I am beginning to suspect that what was originally being said here:

    It is all about priorities. If you support both economic and personal liberalism, think that free markets are best for the whole society, but also think, that the state shouldn't have a say to what consenting adults may do in the bedroom,then you have to choose which is the most important to you.

    is probably exactly what I actually mean.

     

  • At 1:35 pm , Blogger Femme de Resistance said...

    As for removal of legislation, that's what liberalism is in large part about.

    Agreed - I should have put 'blanket removal of economic legislation'.

    She picked some bits suited her, but didn't follow the larger principle from which those bits originate from - otherwise there would never had been for instance the Section 28.

    Again - agreed. This was why I put that Thatcher was not a social liberal (e.g. Section 28).

    But minimal state is nothing else than the night watchman state of the classical liberalism, so in this respect minarchist are classical liberals...If you read for instace this article from the American libertarian Reason magazine, you'll find out that they symphatise the economic liberals of the Lib Dem party.

    But the reason article says:

    this group of reformers issued a manifesto that called for modernizing the party by reinvigorating Liberal Democrat policies through a reclaiming of the party's Classical Liberal heritage

    I am an 'Orange Book' liberal. I agree with a lot of the stuff in the Orange Book and some of it (the environmental chapter) is now party policy. However, nothing in the Orange Book advocates a 'nightwatchman' state.

    Someone is confused here... (I'm unsure if it's me, the Reason's magazine's understanding of Lib Dem motivations or what)

     

  • At 2:44 pm , Blogger Femme de Resistance said...

    As both you and Rob Knight have made clearer to me, my quarrel is not with all of economic liberalism.

    Nah, you're having a quarrel with someone who equates the Orange Bookers with minarchism. They seem to be getting this impression from that US Reason article.

    My understanding from LibertyCat is that the ideological difference between this strand of thought and 'ours' is something to do with property.

    I'll bother him and see if he wants to blog about it - he's spoken to some US libertarians; I haven't.

     

  • At 4:20 pm , Blogger Femme de Resistance said...

    Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks, although as per my previous posts -I don't think the Orange Bookers are different ideologically than other Lib Dems.

    The main ideological difference IMO in the party is as LibertyCat has described it - those who think about liberalism and those who don't. Those who don't tend to jump for ideas that sound worthy but are adding extra and unnecessary legislation. This annoys people who think about liberalism and are trying to promote a liberal agenda, but keep having the occasional illiberal policy thrown back at us (rightly) by our opponents.

    Ideological consistency is important for forming a vision we can sell to the British public. Otherwise, we just sound like another group of managers.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home