My largest undertaking this week was finalizing the draft submission of my chapter on land-use regulation for the forthcoming Routledge Handbook of Classical Liberalism, edited by Richard Epstein, Liya Palagashvili, and Mario Rizzo. It so occurs I used to be additionally a contributor to the Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism, edited by Jason Brennan, Bas van der Vossen, and David Schmidtz, and the Cambridge Handbook of Classical Liberal Thought, edited by M. Todd Henderson.
As a contributor to those three volumes, I ought to maybe have an in depth understanding of libertarianism and classical liberalism and the way they differ. However I would be mendacity if I mentioned I actually have a definitive grasp of the distinction between the 2!
I’ve lonh thought that these are completely different phrases for basically the identical factor (the department of liberalism advocating very tight limits on authorities energy throughout the board), and that the distinction between them is primarily aesthetic. Thus, I’ve at all times most popular “libertarian” as a result of it is simpler to say and bear in mind, sounds higher, and is extra extensively identified. However there are a variety of theories concerning the distinction between the 2. And it is laborious for me to say for certain which (if any) are right.
Listed below are some prospects:
1. Classical liberalism is a extra average model of libertarianism. For instance, classical liberals could also be open to a wider vary of presidency interventions than libertarians (although each favor far lower than trendy liberals do). Could possibly be true. However observe that a few of the most outstanding thinkers who name themselves “classical liberals” are not average, at the same time as in comparison with many self-described libertarians. NYU legislation professor Richard Epstein might be essentially the most well-known and distinguished scholar who calls himself a classical liberal (he’s additionally the director of the Classical Liberal Institute, probably essentially the most prestigious mental group that labels itself “classical liberal”). Reasonable he isn’t—even by comparability with many who name themselves libertarians. CLI co-director Mario Rizzo, a outstanding economist (and main critic of paternalism) can be not significantly average.
2. Calling your self a “classical liberal” is a technique to disassociate from terrible, poisonous individuals who name themselves libertarians (racists, xenophobes, and so forth.). Such trolls are particularly widespread on Twitter. However there are terrible individuals who attempt to affiliate themselves nearly any extensively used ideological designation (conservatism, progressivism, socialism, and so forth.). If “classical liberal” avoids this downside, it is primarily as a result of few folks know the time period.
3. Classical liberal thought is extra intently linked with the good liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment and the nineteenth century (John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and so forth.), whereas libertarians take their bearings from extra trendy thinkers (F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and so forth.). The plain downside right here is that the latter group of thinkers are fairly clearly constructing on the previous in some ways. Additionally, loads of self-described libertarians have an interest within the older thinkers, too, and lots of self-described classical liberals have an interest within the trendy ones.
4. Utilizing “classical liberal” as a substitute of “libertarian” alerts larger mental sophistication. This might be true, as solely folks with intensive information of political principle are prone to know what the previous means. However I am not satisfied that is the primary motive most self-described classical liberals use the phrase. That mentioned, I personally use “libertarian” partially as a result of the time period is better-known and subsequently much less prone to confuse non-experts.
5. I typically see it argued that libertarianism requires adherence to 1 particular core precept, reminiscent of self-ownershp or the “non-aggression precept,” whereas classical liberalism is open to a wider vary of justifications for strict limits on authorities energy. However, in reality, there are essential variations on core rules between libertarian thinkers. Some justify the speculation on the premise of deontological rights-based arguments (e.g.—Robert Nozick), some on utilitarian consequentialist grounds (e.g.—many outstanding economists), and a few (myself included) on a mix of the 2. Amongst those that fall within the rights-based camp, there are disagreements over the precise nature and foundation of the rights in query.
6. Perhaps it is all only a matter of self-definition. In the event you name your self a “libertarian,” then you might be one! Ditto for “classical liberal.” The issue with this concept is that it destroys the worth of the phrases. If there are not any substantive constraints on what qualifies as “libertarian” (or “classical liberal” view), then labeling an individual or an thought with these phrases tells us nothing of worth. To take care of the usefulness of the time period, I need to have the ability to say that individuals who, e.g., assist nationalism, socialism, or racism, usually are not true libertarians, no matter whether or not they name themselves that. To make sure, there’ll at all times be grey areas the place it is debatable whether or not a selected individual (or coverage) is genuinely libertarian or not. However there are additionally going to be instances that clearly fall on one facet of the road or the opposite. See right here for a proof of why such insistence on boundaries would not run afoul of the so-called “No True Scotsman Fallacy.”
I feel 1 and a pair of above are the most typical motivations for using “classical liberal” by those that embrace it. However maybe I’ve that improper.
The entire above is an try to contemplate how the phrases “libertarian” and “classical liberal” are used as we speak. However it’s clearly attainable that their which means will drift over time -as has that of “liberal,” “conservative,” and “progressive.” These whom we name progressives as we speak are very completely different from the early twentieth century motion that first popularized the time period (e.g.—the latter had a robust racist streak, whereas the previous doesn’t).
For the second, I tentatively nonetheless suppose there is not a lot substantive distinction between “libertarianism” and “classical liberalism,” or on the very least that the overlap between the 2 is way larger than any divergence. However that might probably change.
