Classical liberalism is one of the most misrepresented traditions; sometimes intentionally. Its intentional misrepresentations often aim to present tyranny as the solution to our problems. Here is a thread about 11 persistent misrepresentations of classical liberalism:
🧵
🧵
1. ''Classical liberalism has no limiting principles.''
This is just false. Reference to limits is essential. People are supposed to be free to pursue their conception of the good life within limits.
Classical liberals advocate for respecting a regimented sphere of activities within which persons are free to engage in or not engage in without deliberate interference by others, whether civilians or state officials.
To paraphrase the famous saying: 'my liberties end where yours begin and vice versa'. Disrespecting that sphere is off limits from a classical liberal perspective.
This is just false. Reference to limits is essential. People are supposed to be free to pursue their conception of the good life within limits.
Classical liberals advocate for respecting a regimented sphere of activities within which persons are free to engage in or not engage in without deliberate interference by others, whether civilians or state officials.
To paraphrase the famous saying: 'my liberties end where yours begin and vice versa'. Disrespecting that sphere is off limits from a classical liberal perspective.
2. '' Classical liberalism is asocial.''
It is absolutely not. The focus on the importance of protecting individual rights makes sense only in social contexts. It is only in social contexts where these rights can be violated.
Rather than a philosophy that denies community and our social nature, it is a philosophy that recognises it and discerns between good and bad ways of belonging into groups/societies. That not every way of belonging to a group does not need further elaboration.
It is absolutely not. The focus on the importance of protecting individual rights makes sense only in social contexts. It is only in social contexts where these rights can be violated.
Rather than a philosophy that denies community and our social nature, it is a philosophy that recognises it and discerns between good and bad ways of belonging into groups/societies. That not every way of belonging to a group does not need further elaboration.
3. ''Classical liberalism is necessarily morally neutral.''
This is false and misleading because it is based on a conflation. The classical liberal state is not supposed to be 100% morally neutral. It is supposed to be neutral with respect to totalising conceptions of the good life. In other words, the state must abstain from imposing on everyone a moral doctrine that involves commands about how we should or shouldn't act in every aspect of our lives.
The notion of a just or an unjust law/policy is not foreign to classical liberals. The goal is to have laws that approximate morality while understanding human fallibility in discerning that moral law as well as the uncomfortable realisation that coercing action sabotages its moral value. The moral value of an action requires choice. Coercing action disrespects choice and by implication, its potential moral character.
This is false and misleading because it is based on a conflation. The classical liberal state is not supposed to be 100% morally neutral. It is supposed to be neutral with respect to totalising conceptions of the good life. In other words, the state must abstain from imposing on everyone a moral doctrine that involves commands about how we should or shouldn't act in every aspect of our lives.
The notion of a just or an unjust law/policy is not foreign to classical liberals. The goal is to have laws that approximate morality while understanding human fallibility in discerning that moral law as well as the uncomfortable realisation that coercing action sabotages its moral value. The moral value of an action requires choice. Coercing action disrespects choice and by implication, its potential moral character.
4. ''Classical liberalism promised equality''
There is nothing remotely appropriate about this misrepresentation. Talking about equality in the abstract is lazy and unilluminating. Equality of what? The equality that classical liberals talked about occurred within a very specific context; in the context of reacting against the notion that some people are naturally 'superior' and that because they are naturally 'superior', all other people are inferior and therefore, dispensable tools for the goals of the 'superior' ones, even goals they choose at whim. Reaction against this notion leads to the emphasis on political equalities, which are not to be conflated with administrative equality. For instance, Montesquieu is adamant about warning that popular government is on the brink of destruction when people interpret equality as also implying administrative equality.
Furthermore, there is no focus on flattening everyone economically speaking. Classical liberals understood full well that hierarchies would still exist. The whole point is that these acceptable hierarchies are to be allowed to arise spontaneously as opposed to them being enforced by a board of bureaucrats.
There is nothing remotely appropriate about this misrepresentation. Talking about equality in the abstract is lazy and unilluminating. Equality of what? The equality that classical liberals talked about occurred within a very specific context; in the context of reacting against the notion that some people are naturally 'superior' and that because they are naturally 'superior', all other people are inferior and therefore, dispensable tools for the goals of the 'superior' ones, even goals they choose at whim. Reaction against this notion leads to the emphasis on political equalities, which are not to be conflated with administrative equality. For instance, Montesquieu is adamant about warning that popular government is on the brink of destruction when people interpret equality as also implying administrative equality.
Furthermore, there is no focus on flattening everyone economically speaking. Classical liberals understood full well that hierarchies would still exist. The whole point is that these acceptable hierarchies are to be allowed to arise spontaneously as opposed to them being enforced by a board of bureaucrats.
5. ''Communism is the logical conclusion of classical liberalism.''
This is just stunningly untrue. One knows not where to begin to show how false this is. Suffice it to say that any kind of communal property of anything that can function as a means of production is simply inconsistent with the classical liberal defence of economic liberties.
And then there is the tactical issue. Those who have tried to bring communism about have invariably done so by restricting liberties to a ridiculous extent.
This is just stunningly untrue. One knows not where to begin to show how false this is. Suffice it to say that any kind of communal property of anything that can function as a means of production is simply inconsistent with the classical liberal defence of economic liberties.
And then there is the tactical issue. Those who have tried to bring communism about have invariably done so by restricting liberties to a ridiculous extent.
6. ''Classical liberalism is naively utopian.''
Again, it is absolutely not. Classical liberals have been almost invariably realists. This is nowhere more manifest than in the emphasis on the importance of vigilance against aspiring tyrants.
This point is not just false. It is also an inversion of the truth in that antiliberals are frequently utopian or very optimistic about the 'select few' who they want to give power to.
Again, it is absolutely not. Classical liberals have been almost invariably realists. This is nowhere more manifest than in the emphasis on the importance of vigilance against aspiring tyrants.
This point is not just false. It is also an inversion of the truth in that antiliberals are frequently utopian or very optimistic about the 'select few' who they want to give power to.
7. ''Classical liberalism is apolitical and focuses on rights instead of responsibilities.''
Well, this does describe the tendencies of people who frequently call themselves liberals but not the major thinkers of the tradition. As also hinted in point 6 above, classical liberals thought they could not stress enough the importance of vigilance against aspiring tyrants. This is perhaps most evident in the classical republican strand of classical liberalism.
Well, this does describe the tendencies of people who frequently call themselves liberals but not the major thinkers of the tradition. As also hinted in point 6 above, classical liberals thought they could not stress enough the importance of vigilance against aspiring tyrants. This is perhaps most evident in the classical republican strand of classical liberalism.
8. ''Classical liberalism is based on a false anthropology.''
This is often thrown without explained further, as if the mere mentioning of it settles the issue. The elephant in the room is that classical liberals had a wide variety of views about anthropology. That said, perhaps the only important part of this anthropology for its politics (i.e., the most common anthropological feature of classical liberal thought) is the non-utopian recognition that humans are prone to violence. Thus, the need for being vigilant against those who would aspire to abuse power never ceases.
People who throw this accusation often talk about the 'state of nature'. Nevertheless, almost any classical liberal who spoke about the state of nature' had different ideas about it and its position within the tradition is not that central to begin with.
This is often thrown without explained further, as if the mere mentioning of it settles the issue. The elephant in the room is that classical liberals had a wide variety of views about anthropology. That said, perhaps the only important part of this anthropology for its politics (i.e., the most common anthropological feature of classical liberal thought) is the non-utopian recognition that humans are prone to violence. Thus, the need for being vigilant against those who would aspire to abuse power never ceases.
People who throw this accusation often talk about the 'state of nature'. Nevertheless, almost any classical liberal who spoke about the state of nature' had different ideas about it and its position within the tradition is not that central to begin with.
9. ''The ethics of classical liberalism are subversive because they treat wants as sacrosanct.''
Nothing could be further from the truth. As discussed in almost every of the previous points, classical liberals called for an ordered, regimented framework of liberties; not anarchy. Furthermore, the classical liberal's scepticism of those who want to abuse power is enough to reveal how wants are not treated as sacrosanct in classical liberalism.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As discussed in almost every of the previous points, classical liberals called for an ordered, regimented framework of liberties; not anarchy. Furthermore, the classical liberal's scepticism of those who want to abuse power is enough to reveal how wants are not treated as sacrosanct in classical liberalism.
10. ''Classical liberalism is naively universalistic and neglects culture.''
All one needs to do to see how false this is read classical liberals and how much they stressed cultural differences during the Enlightenment era. A few examples: Montesquieu's Spirit of the laws and his Persian letters, as well as Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments and the wealth of nations.
All one needs to do to see how false this is read classical liberals and how much they stressed cultural differences during the Enlightenment era. A few examples: Montesquieu's Spirit of the laws and his Persian letters, as well as Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments and the wealth of nations.
11. ''Classical liberalism aims to break social bonds.''
This is as false as the view that holds classical liberalism to be asocial. Bonds form and break. Not enforcing those bonds by state coercion does not mean that these bonds will break. To believe that they would is to deny that humans are social beings because it implies that social bonds cannot arise spontaneously (the core of believing in humanity's social nature).
Classical liberalism is not at all asocial. It is just realistic and reminds us that bonds may break. It also reminds us that civil society doesn't have to be entirely directed in a top-down fashion.
This is as false as the view that holds classical liberalism to be asocial. Bonds form and break. Not enforcing those bonds by state coercion does not mean that these bonds will break. To believe that they would is to deny that humans are social beings because it implies that social bonds cannot arise spontaneously (the core of believing in humanity's social nature).
Classical liberalism is not at all asocial. It is just realistic and reminds us that bonds may break. It also reminds us that civil society doesn't have to be entirely directed in a top-down fashion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
