Skip to main content

10 Liberal Texts

Iain Dale put down some thoughts on his blog as to what the 10 key texts of Conservatism were. I was interested to see that several Conservatives tried to claim Liberal thinkers, such as JS Mill, as Conservative.

My own choice for Liberalism would be (in no particular order):

JS Mill: On Liberty
FA Hayek: The Constitution of Liberty
Karl Popper: The Open Society and its Enemies
John Locke: Second Treatise on Civil Government
Voltaire: Essay on the Manner and Spirit of Nations and on the Principal Occurrences in History
Rousseau: The Social Contract
von Humboldt: On the limits of State Action
Isaiah Berlin: Two concepts of Liberty
James Madision/Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist Papers
David Hume: A Treatise on Human Nature

Probably various others such as Aristotle's Politics or Joseph Steiglitz' Globalisation and its Discontents, should be included- please leave your ideas...

Comments

John Locke's Ghost said…
I actually can't understand why so many liberals seem to think that Rousseau was a liberal. Indeed, Rousseau said in the footnotes of the Social Contract that "In Genoa, the word, libertas, can be read on the front of prisons and on the fetters of galley‐slaves. The application of this motto is fine and just."

Probably one reason why so many make the mistake to take Rousseau as liberal is because his book was called "the Social contract". However, it wasn't the first time that the idea of a social contract was introduced, and not all the social contract models are liberal. Rousseau's certainly wasn't, and he has inspired and appealed to later socialists, communists, anarchists, fascists, populists and the modern greens - almost everybody except the liberals.

The most important political thoughts of Voltaire were presented in his contribution to the Encyclopédie, but as there were other (also less liberal) contributors and the whole book isn't about political theory, I'd mention "A Treatise on Toleration" as a good example of his contribution to liberalism.

Though James Madison was clearly a liberal, his co-authors of the Federalist Papers, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, are usually regarded as conservatives.

David Hume was a great philosopher, but don't you think that his contribution to the political philosophy was somewhat modest, and "A Treatise on Human Nature" was hardly about liberalism?

I think there are some essential texts you have missed (here in chronological order):

Adam Smith: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Immanuel Kant: On the common saying: this may be true in theory but it does not apply in practice (OR: Theory and Practice)
Frédéric Bastiat: The Law
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia
6:03 pm
John Locke's Ghost said…
RE Aritotle and Stiglitz:

Aristotle was rather conservative, supporting for instance slavery unlike some more radical but less known thinker of his time. But of course he was less socialist than Plato, which probably why many liberals would like to adopt him as a liberal. However, I recall that Popper mentioned some more liberal thinkers from the classical period in the Open Society and its Enemies.

As for Stiglitz, if you'll add him, you might want to mention also some books of Peter Thomas Bauer,Jagdish Bhagwati and Hernando de Soto.
6:24 pm
Cicero said…
I must say I do have reservations about Rousseau, but I included him since teh main thrust of the Social Contract is what the state may not do, and this was one of my definitions of Liberal. As for David Hume, although I agree, he is more of a moral philosopher, one can see empiricism and utilitarianism as major features in his work. Smith and Kant I also concur are in the Liberal school, but in limiting my list to 10- and assuming that Smith is regarded with approval by most political schools (Marxists aside), but I will happily claim him as a Liberal. Bastiat was a forerunner of the Austrian school, but I did not consider him to be top 10. Nozick is usually considered "anarcho-capitalist" as much as Liberal, but in any event he lacks the Ciceronian moderation that I was also looking for in my classification.

Arguably including Aristotle is an anachronism, but I often find myself using Aristotilian definitions, and I wanted to use him as an intellectual contrast to Plato, whose influence can be seen in many anti-Liberal philosophers.

As for Bauer- certainly a friend of Hayek, but not, I submit as significant. I do approve of Jagdish Bhagwati- especially "In defence of globalization". Hernando de Soto is a more controversial figure who while he clearly has a liberal inspiration, I think is not of sufficient stature to be included.

Thanks for your thoughts
4:53 pm
John Locke's Ghost said…
"Nozick is usually considered "anarcho-capitalist" as much as Liberal,...

That's a common mistake, made by people I suspect have not read his book Anarchy, State and Utopia, and are judging him by the name of the book. However, in the first part of his book, Anarchy, he starts, like John Locke, from a state of nature (anarchy) and tries to show how a state can rise from it without violating the rights of individuals. It is sometimes disputed whether he succeeded, but he can't by any means be described an "anarcho-capitalist".

In the second part of the book, State he tries to define the limits of the state, and ends in supporting a minimal state, or a night-watchman state, as it is also called. This makes him a minarchist, which is mutually exclusive with anarcho-capitalism.

In the third part, Utopia, he introduces his vision, a framework of utopia, where people within a minimal state could set up their own communities, where they could practise their own ideals, even socialism (of course as long as the membership of these communities would be voluntary).
2:42 am
Tristan said…
I'd say that to get a fuller picture the Anti-federalist papers should be read with the Federalist papers.

The other glaring omission would be Cato's Letters (Gordon & Trenchard) which deal with many areas of liberalism.

The Liberal Internation has an (incomplete) list of liberal thinkers on its website as well as those in the Hall of Freedom

Its a diverse group of people from Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises to L.T. Hobhouse, Eleanor Rosevelt and John Rawls.

Many of the writings of these people could probably be included on this list, even though many of them vehemently disagree with each other...
1:38 pm
Anonymous said…
thank you nice sharing

cep program
1:16 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more