Hello there, I'm new to this site and I've got to say...its so refreshing to see all these posts full of respectful and sincere discussion. This forum is above and beyond most in nearly every way. If possible, I was wondering if I could share my essay that I had written for my international relations class.
I'm not to sure if I would be going against protocol in doing so though. Its about 12 pages doublespaced. Would it be allright if I shared it?
And, any other places I might get it critiqued?
Its an overview of classical liberalisms development since before ancient Greece.
Thanks
Sharing stuff like that, in my opinion, is what this forum is for. I myself would be very much interested in looking at it, since that particular subject is highly interesting to me.
Thank you very much. I only ask if anyone use or quote this I be credited. Here it is.
A Summary of the Roots and History of Classical Liberalism in the United States of America
by: Jose C*****
When people hear the words “The United States of America”, what do they feel? As they listen what thoughts and connotations spur their conscious judgments concerning what those words mean? Do we recognize the distinctly hopeful clarity of the word “freedom” as people around the world yearn for it? Could people, media moguls, and politicians believe that it is still the bedrock of the United States of America? Would the vast distracted, those dissected citizens believe that the idea of the United States of America is still within them? Embracing the observation that the epitome of humanity lies within as well as without the individual while observing the varying foci of civilizations development this essay takes as granted that the United States of America is to this day what it was essentially at its inception in the 18th century: the bastion of Classical Liberalism, the doctrine of liberty as the foremost goal of government and, by extension, progress as the foremost goal of humanity.
As opposed to the modern leftist definition of liberalism, Classical or Traditional Liberalism is defined as “the doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government”. Highlighting the indispensability of natural rights, rule of law, lawful representation, equality under the law and other familiar tenets of developed civilization, Classical Liberalism is not only where we’ve been but where the sovereign nations of the world should be going. From founding to founders we can see that mankind’s development closely parallels the civilized spread of freedom, idealistically and practically, coming to modern fruition in the form of classical liberalism. What follows is a modest tracing of those root concepts and personalities that have formulated the core philosophy serving as the driving force of just Government today.
“Give me Liberty, or give me Death!”
It speaks volumes of misfortune that today those words of Patrick Henry, in common observance, contain little of their grandeur and even less of their purpose. A precedent rending tumultuously contagious cry, bespeaking the driving ancient human wills that have lashed out against ages and inclinations of autocracy simultaneously set a standard for heroically just dissent while exemplifying the most essential premise of the United States of America: Man is meant to be free, and the purpose of his government is to preserve that freedom. When such ideas are forgotten by scholars and politicians alike what hope does the average man have against the challenges to his freedom borne by the innumerable flaws of man in their time? Those spoken words have, by weight of musty history texts, been now driven to the realm of abandoned uttered archaisms. Since the establishment of the U.S. individual freedom, free markets, and limited government were taken as obvious necessities, the defense of which brought together one of the greatest intellectual phalanxes in history; our founding fathers, who with book after oration after essay (and a bit of revolution) put forth into the public consciousness and advanced as government policy the practical historical steps taken by men to wrest emancipation from despotism and opportunity from the earth.
Here no attempt is made to deny the original purposes and intents of this nation. Let us recall its fundamental principle’s relevance in this moment, trying as any. Around the world the equitable idea of liberty is fresh as it was the moment oppression was born. Unfortunately this is because today freedom remains the grass of a distant shore to most. Liberty is seen by callous and controlling regimes and extremist factions as a contagious disease to be eradicated rather than a luminous beacon of human enlightenment or, as in the words of Thomas Paine, a renegade to be destroyed:
“Freedom hath been hunted round the Globe…O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind…”
America was that first great asylum- a noble experiment whereby economic and political liberties were taken as necessities of existence rather than luxuries of power. Liberty, man’s sovereignty over his life choices and property, was come home. Here philosophy, civilization, and man escaped from “…a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations…” to a trail of continued self perpetuating progress.
The idea of liberty, liberalism’s major ideological strain, was probably first realized into its embryonic form by the Athenian lawmaker, Solon (c. 638 BC–558 BC) who, while attempting to meet the ills of ancient Greek society through liberal reform, set a foundational and, quite importantly, constitutional basis for democracy. Solon most notably broadened the prerequisites necessary for elected office, allowing any Greek citizen (rather than only nobles) the chance to involve themselves in government. This is perhaps the first recorded attempt of government making itself more inclusive and democratic (rather than more exclusive and autocratic/elitist) without the use of force. Allowing natural citizens to both make up the legislative body and, by extension, the courts, now even aristocrats could (in theory) be held accountable for their actions.
These foundations of democracy would really shine a century later when following the Greek victories in the Persian Wars the noted general, orator, and politician Pericles set forth The Age of Pericles, otherwise known as the Golden Age of Greece, occurring between 448 - 404 B.C. Following the Persian Wars Athens, the richest Greek city state, began to grow powerful through its perhaps unjust control of the war coffers and position in the Delian League, a loose association of Greek states. This increase in wealth and prosperity created a rich cultural atmosphere unlike any seen before where art, architecture, Philosophy, and all manner of intellectual pursuits came to the forefront of human endeavors. The unprecedented prosperity of the Age of Pericles had to end, but what it created has been and still remains to this day the driving force of all humanism, intellectualism, civilization, and human progress- the power of rational thought and free discourse.
During the Golden Age of Greece one short ugly unassuming man sat in Athens, asked questions, and changed the world. This avatar of humility was named Socrates. A man who spent most of his time sitting and contemplating philosophical inquiries with groups of all manner of people, Socrates logically demonstrated that wisdom results in the individual understanding of personal ignorance in light of all knowledge while the application of reason is the only way to test the validity of an idea. These realizations gave civilization as a whole awareness of Freedom beyond disconcerting “non-slavery” (still subject to the whims of the powerful) and liberal democracy its functional direction. Where reason stood immovable so could man in his quest for truth, justice, and a better life. In truth little is known of him beyond what is recorded by his greatest student, Plato, whose writings have so impacted the world that, in a famous and slightly hyperbolic statement the 19th and 20th century philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead declared “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” Science then found its progenitor in Aristotle, who wrote vast treatises classifying the natural world and gave many other varied contributions to intellectual advancement affecting the development of everything from the scientific method, medicine, and anthropology to theology and metaphysics.
Liberty might have first been made into a reality due to mans ability to empathize coupled with the natural desire to avoid conflict and compel cooperation within the context of Greek tribal aristocratic disputes. Ancient Greece was thus the birthplace of democracy, the form of government where the votes of the people themselves provide governmental change. However, if Greece was liberty’s cradle, then Ancient Rome was its playground. As a monarchy, republic, and eventual empire Rome was heavily war based, a trait that along with heavy emulation of Greek ideas and traditions would carry it to a scale and glory perhaps unmatched until the modern age. Though actualized freedom was sadly still but a dream to the massive amount of slaves in Roman society, the implementation of grand administrative projects, representative democracy, and cultural absorption of conquered peoples provided an incredibly able example for effective large scale government administration still used and studied as a model today. Here, and for centuries onward, freedom survived only by the strength of upper class will, largely defined as simply not being enslaved, and remaining this way until the culmination of that upper class will nearly a millennium later during the middle ages.
In 1215 A.D. liberty took its first broad step when a group of disgruntled Barons, chafing under the English thrones absolute power, forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta (Latin for “Great Charter”), a document ensuring the rights of nobles with respect to legal procedures thus ensuring the King’s submission to the Rule of Law. Not only was the King now answerable to his people (that is, a powerful minority of them) but the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Latin for “You (shall) have the body”) now allowed men to appeal against unlawful imprisonment guaranteeing due process of the law. Understatedly radical in its scope, the Magna Carta introduced the formal concept of civil liberties-laws to protect the individual from government power, cementing their acknowledgment in western culture as a value of “free peoples”.
The 1300’s saw the proliferation of several more ideas that expanded the sphere of the liberal tradition. Humanism, the reintroduction of classical Greek and Roman education, led to the Renaissance of the 1400’s, an Italian and gradually European revival of Hellenistic art and values. Emerging from the Renaissance was an empowered and adventurous elite and middle class, whose explorations into the new world of North and South America brought wealth, empire, colonialism, and eventually the first settlers of the American-British colonies. Britain, from this point quickly becoming the most powerful nation of the world, was undoubtedly the cultural basis for the American colonies. Yet the colonies themselves were conspicuous in the amount of freedom and acceptance settlers gave one another. This was probably due to the inherently multicultural nature of the colonies inhabitants who, as opposed to the European countries, had in most instances to work together if they wished to ensure survival. Being made up of traders, settlers, and religious groups of many nations and affiliations, cultural and religious prejudice was often more costly than tolerance. This brought about an ingrained affinity for one essential aspect of liberty: equality (at least among the land owning white males).
The year 1689 brought a seismic shift to the government of Britain when a group of parliamentarians and nobles led militarily by William of Orange, a Dutch steward, invaded the isle of Great Britain causing King James II to flee and essentially abdicate the crown. Called “The Glorious Revolution” the vacancy on the throne led to William’s coronation, an increase in parliamentary (and thus, democratic) power, and the creation of the English Bill of Rights forever limiting the power of the monarchy in England. This shift from a belief in absolute power of the king to the belief in the ultimate sovereignty of the people through representation would become dourly inflamed as the American-British colonists would find themselves ruled arbitrarily, rather than through their desired representation in the British Parliament.
To understand the United State’s beginning an essential point must be understood in regards to what spurred its creation- a loose association of powerful intellects coupled with an immense culturally-based public support for the ideology of Republicanism as well as, due to the strongly individualistic nature of the original thirteen colonies, the political philosophy of Federalism. Federalism was the concept of a group of states making up the whole of government, preventing centralization of power and ease of tyranny. Republicanism consisted of a public absorption of the various ethical and political philosophies of the Era, especially constitutional law, which focused heavily on the true role of government, questioning the nature and attributes of British hereditary rule compared to the new thinker’s innovative ideas of practically just sovereignty. It is defined as a value system stressing the observance of mans individual rights and liberty, holding them inalienable, placing true sovereignty in the hands of the people by way of a federal government.
America’s governors, officials, intellects and elites shared these singularly divine chords that continue to inspire us to this day, each of them affected by their British heritage and the various great thinkers of their past and present; thinkers such as English philosopher John Locke, who pointed out that the observance of natural human rights is the only rational way a government may operate along with presenting the idea of “government with the consent of the governed”; French social commentator and political thinker Montesquieu who, using the British constitution as a model, detailed the necessity of Separation and Balance of powers in government between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches in order to prevent corruption and despotism; Adam Smith, the Scottish moral philosopher who was the father of Economic theory and Capitalism, the economic system whereby one is free to own their own wealth and do with it what they wish within the Rule of Law. The American colonists shift from mercantilist to capitalist free-trade tendencies was definitely a major contributor to British imposition of unjust taxation upon the colonies, increasing their passion for separation. Classical education bestowed upon these men a clear perspective on the role of government in the lives of citizens while their positions gave them the power to act on their beliefs. As early as 1765 delegates of several states convened to address their subjugation to arbitrary British taxation. Even though the representatives of the colonists met together and in 1776 at once voted on their separation from England their struggle was far from over.
Concerning the subject of the political in the United States of America there has hardly ever been a lack of ideas to stoke flames of contentious debate. Whether the subject is taxes, war, or the lawful bounds of government itself, America owes its prosperous existence to the friction of arguments between its most fertile and capable minds. In fact it might be said that the most distinguishing feature of a functional democracy is itself argumentation, an awareness of this necessary facet of progress a nod to distant Socrates. It seems to parallel the contrary nature of man- though we disagree we may also compromise, as we each deserve the expression of our wants and the freedom of our individual choices in government we still concede the best decisions to majority will, hoping the majority will choose wisdom. But our founding fathers were no accidents of the masses. As men they were of a specific time that especially served to cultivate their immense talents. Known to western civilization as The Age of Enlightenment (1607 A.D-1804 A.D.); their period was a time identified with pronounced scientific advancement and a reliance on rational thought that ushered in a host of invention, scientific discovery, inquiry and intellectual development. Coming from this background, these highly educated aristocrats, politicians, and entrepreneurs understood that democracy, in itself, is no guarantee of a good government dedicated to preserving the rights of its people. In the words of the third president of the United States Thomas Jefferson (and in the sober opinion of Plato) “Democracy is the mob rule”, wherein it would only take a majority vote to destroy the rights of the whole or individual member of the minority. This danger understood we see, by means of the American Revolution (1775 to 1783), the major introduction of what is now recognized as the near fully matured doctrine of Classical Liberalism in the United States, taking from many sources and branching from the cultural, intellectual and social realm, to a complete foundation in the political, most notably in the form of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights, otherwise observed as the first ten amendments of our constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, illustrated the apparent rights of man and the necessities of government in respect to these rights. Among these being “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, at the time an obvious reference to English philosopher John Locke’s expressions concerning natural human rights. The Bill of Rights itself is most likely the greatest document in the cause for liberty ever taken up as law by a sovereign nation. The fact that it composes the first ten amendments of our constitution leads to an incredible historical observation in the tracing of classical liberalisms development: for the first time in the history of mankind has government rested on the rights of man, rather than the rights of man depending on government. Coming to this conclusion, but still faced with innumerable daunting issues, the founding fathers though varying in their tastes, strengths, and flaws are still a wonder of the power of reasoned debate oriented on progress and compromise. This trait was indispensable in creating the constitution of the United States that still serves it today. Foreseeing the grandness of its potential and the scope of American freedom, the first president and founding father George Washington had this to say:
“The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and Independency; They are, from this period, to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity.”
Hopeful and awe inspiring, the words of the founders served as the primary guidelines of American government arguably until the mid-20th century. The 19th century however brought the cause of liberty new questions and complicated challenges. The slavery issue was still very much glossed over, the appeasement of the slave owning south being necessary to the very creation and stability of America. In the early 19th century few wanted to lend an ear to the seemingly over idealistic cries of abolition. But weren’t the Americans themselves nothing if not newly freed people by the hands of abolitionists? Regardless, sharp minds and critical assessments of America allowed its continual liberal development. American author, abolitionist, and poet Henry David Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience highlighted the liberal belief that an individual’s conscience is exclusive from their governments action and that when they do not coincide a just individual will resist their government- that dissent is the rational consequence of understanding right from wrong. Following democratic upheavals in the rest of the world as well as the American civil war, the pronouncement of the slave’s freedom and acceptance as American citizens brought America ever closer to the equality and civil liberties necessary to what is considered a free society today. Yet discrimination, subjugation, and oppression took many forms after the civil war, with African Americans not delegated true emancipation until the late 20th century where the feminist movement and civil rights movement brought equality to all subsets and definitions of people.
The gilded age and all its disillusionment carried America into the 20th century, truly testing its ability to hold onto its traditional principles in an era where the complications of multiculturalism, big business, and their effects on society strained the idea of liberty in view of its new challenges. Socialism, resulting Communism, Collectivism, Anarchism, and two World Wars brought classical liberal principles shadows of doubt as America became a nation of immense strength and prosperity. But the liberal movement was not gone, its timbers still engrained and further expanded by such Classical Liberal revivalist thinkers as Friedrich Hayek, Karl Popper, and Ludwig Von Mises. Hayek brought scathing criticisms of socialism, demonstrating its need for centralized economic planning and thus necessary compromise of individual rights in orchestrating socialist economic plans. Karl Poppers intellectual detailing of Henri Bergson’s idea of the “Open Society” defines it as one whereby political leaders that work against liberty can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed. Economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out that methodological individualism is the means by which societies prosper, rejecting the materialist and positivist sentiments of collectivist political philosophies.
Today, as always, it seems that classical liberalism knows more enemies than supporters. As politicians and demagogues use inherently flawed justification for centralization of government power and subversion of people’s rights the immediate future of classical liberalism remains distinctly uncertain. History has shown that only when people demand the observance of their rights by rejecting the arbitrary constraints of the selfish and power hungry do they bring about their own prosperity. A jarring call to action is necessary for every generation of apathy that follows generations of hard won freedom. But, as time has also shown, willed action always takes men beyond the spheres of their own expectations indicating that the cause of goodness knows no limits inviolable, leading me to the conclusion that there is no reason to call the mass and power of great obstacles any justification for lack of hope or compromise of the inherent rights of all men.
References:
A Documentary History of the United States by Richard D. Hefner
Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis
The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant
The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper
The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek
Freedom: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture by Orlando Patterson
What level paper is this? High school? College?
"Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" - by Murray Rothbard. A good article on the evolution of Liberalism in the United States.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html
Also your idea that capitalism is a product of Adam Smith is severly flawed. Richard Cantillon is actually the father of modern capitalism. Though capitalist theory existed even before him. For further research in this matter see Murray Rothbard's History of Economic Thought Volume One: Economic Thought before Adam Smith.
There is also this lecture:
"The Pre-Austrians"
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/rothbard/hoet/3.mp3
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
This is a paper for a sophomore level college class.
Thank you for pointing out the innacuracies in my understanding of the origins of capitalism. That would have been pretty embarassing if I had tried to peddle my writing to someone in a periodical who actually knew their stuff. Thanks for those very good links, I'll study those.
I somewhat despairingly admit that I am an aspiring writer. Corrections and revisions will be made to the paper as soon as I get a chance and I ask that you please critique it in depth if you can.
I wonder, is it boring? Is it interesting? Is it stylistically strange? Grammatically incorrect?
Jose:Grammatically incorrect?
In the paragraph beginning, "To understand the United State’s beginning," in the last sentence, "mans" should be man's".
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Jose:I somewhat despairingly admit that I am an aspiring writer. Corrections and revisions will be made to the paper as soon as I get a chance and I ask that you please critique it in depth if you can.
No one can actually write what they want to say in one session.
Jose:I wonder, is it boring? Is it interesting? Is it stylistically strange? Grammatically incorrect?
It generally lacks specifics from time to time. Like you say founding fathers want liberty. Not necessarily. There are federalists who wanted to create a new empire in the image of the British. Go into more detail, point out who wanted what and use their own words or paraphrase if you are comfortable with that. Also what kind of citation style is this? Is it for a history class or political science? I suggest using Turabian style because it is more detailed and citation friendly.
http://library.osu.edu/sites/guides/turabiangd.php
If you use windows I can tell you how to make reference marks for footnotes if you don't know how to do it. I'm sure your teacher would apperciate the extra effort of concisely pointing out your reference material.
Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Is this for a history class, if not you can probably ignore most of my suggestions.
If I were marking that essay they would gain a mixed response. On the one hand it is nice to be given something well written; and I can assure you most undergraduate essays are very poorly written and bit of care goes a long way. On the other hand your job in writing an undergraduate paper is to prove that you are aware of the relevant literature and arguments, for that you require more than six references. In an essay such as this you have considerable scope to bring in relevent historiographical issues that dominate modern scholarship. For example, a few words about the transfer of ideals and networking across the Atlantic World (a relatively modern historiographical tradition championed by Harvard's Bernard Bailyn), would be very impressive. By the same token, an examination of the impact of religious thought upon the Age of Enlightenment (and with them the ideal of liberty) and vis versa would be good. A start into that area of historiography would be Mark Noll. I also thought you skipped over the issue of slavery and abolitionism, refering to them as a 19th century issues. This simply isn't so, it was as much an 18th century debate, if you require proof remember that the constitution specificly prevented the abolition of the slave trade until 1808, when it was abolished.