True
Liberalism, Individualism and Why This is Not Being Conservative
Pablo Paniagua May, 2012
“The use of the undifferentiated
collective concepts of everyday speech is always a cloak for confusion of
thought and action. It is, indeed, very often an instrument of specious and fraudulent
procedures. It is, in brief always a means of obstructing the proper
formulation of the problem”
Max
Weber
Unfortunately
today the use and abuse of the expression “Liberal” and “Liberalism” have
completely distorted the original meaning of those noble words in such a way
that new names had to be created to represent their true values. The expression
“Classical Liberalism” was created in order to revive the fundamental liberal
beliefs which were erroneously redefined throughout the previous centuries. The
systematic distortion of Liberalism’s meaning and values was particularly
widespread in the United States the place in which the word is now primarily
ironically used by people who are completely and fundamentally against all true
Liberalism values. This “cloak for confusion” as Max Weber defined it, is
indeed very dangerous since it obstructs the proper understanding and diffusion
of liberal values; this is a fundamental problem for any nation that wishes to
prosper.
The
Liberal “movement” origin is difficult to determine. For example Professor
Hayek believed that we can establish the British and Scottish Enlightenment as
the cradle of the Liberal philosophy. However, during the history of mankind
there have been enormous contributions to the meaning of Liberalism, even way
before those of the Britons. Socrates, Aristotle, Bastiat and Cicero are
considered fundamental in developing the Liberal values. Even further back, the
very notion of Liberalism and Individualism has deep Christian roots. Despite
these varied sources, we can confidently establish that there has never been a
systematic and simultaneous contribution to Liberal studies. The Scottish
Enlightenment started a “Liberal Revolution” which experienced its social peak
in Britain at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century,
culminating with the Industrial Revolution.
The
whole idea of Liberalism as Ralph Raico stated is “based on the conception of a
free civil society, as by and large self-regulating when its members are free
to act within the very wide bounds of their individual rights.” Therefore a
Liberal society is open and members are encouraged to freely cooperate with
each other. The spontaneous collaboration and activities which free men
undertake in a Liberal society must be performed while respecting the wide
bounds of their own individual rights.
The
fundamental framework towards relying on the spontaneous collaboration of free
men includes: private property, freedom of contract, freedom of exchange and
the free disposition of your own capacities or labor. Under this societal ideal
system, the State plays a very important but interesting role: keeping itself
out of the spontaneous collaboration of individuals. The fact is that the State
is indeed indirectly very relevant. This is mainly because it has the power,
and most of the time the will, to intervene in the spontaneous choices of the
individuals inside the society; this undermines and disrupts the free
collaborations. Therefore we need to remark the relevance of the State by
actually not being visibly relevant. As Max Weber defined “…liberalism
establishes that the most desirable regime of affairs is one in which civil
society that is the whole spontaneous order is based in private property and
free exchange.” As a result, the State must only provide the legal framework in
which spontaneous collaboration of man can surge, playing consequently a
marginal but yet very important contribution to the ideal state of
affairs.
The
main values and the essential ideas of Liberalism were very well established by
the Scottish Enlightenment and were particularly well-rooted in English society
in the 19th century. Therefore we have to ask ourselves, how did the conception
of Liberalism and the meaning of being a Liberal change so dramatically from
the 18th century until today? There are several theories that in one way or
another address this alteration and loss of the fundamental concept.
I
will particularly mention Professor Hayek’s view about the concept mutation
throughout Central Europe’s history. Hayek stated that the fundamental revision
that the concept suffered was due to its misinterpretation during the Central
European Enlightenment and the intrusion of positivism in the Social Sciences.
He established that two Liberal movements emerged in Europe: one the so called
“True Liberalism,” particularly so in Britain, and the other called “False
Liberalism,” seen in France and the rest of Central Europe. It was in France
that Liberalism had a fundamentally deep rationalistic and positive deviation.
European intellectuals who believed in the Liberal values unfortunately
incorporated French rationalism and positivism into their moral systems; they
were mostly influenced by the scientific and mathematical enlightenment
material by Descartes, Voltaire and Newton. Hayek believed that bringing this
rationalistic approach into the notion of individualism and freedom would
completely alter its true meaning. This would bring a whole new spectrum of
intellectual despotism that would have been the beginning of the degradation of
the true definition of being Liberal. Unfortunately, he was right.
This
rationalistic approach did indeed eventually lead to a sort of ‘Enlightened
Despotism’ towards knowledge and other methodological approaches in Social
Sciences. It eventually culminated in the French Revolution, completely
changing the notion of individual freedom to the collective misconception of
freedom through state unification. Sadly, this approach directed by the French
intellectuals led them against their own fundamental Liberal beliefs. It also
misguided them towards an intolerant attitude towards religion and opened the
gates for big state power and abusing social planning reasoning. Soon
afterwards, this extended over the rest of Central Europe and ended with
authoritarian regimes intruding at the beginning of the 20th century.
Alongside
destroying the fundamental meaning of Liberalism, no political and social term
received worse misconception and demonization than the true concept of
Individualism. In the same way that Liberalism underwent its mutation,
Individualism’s meaning suffered as well. Hayek’s “False Individualism” was
brought on by the abuse of positivism in Central Europe, especially in France
during Rousseau and the French Revolution. The new notion of “free individuals”
under a programmed, rational, planned unification and extended equality was the
new way to perceive freedom and therefore “false Individualism” was born.
Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a misconception of true freedom,
replaced by a collective “freedom” under a coercive State.
Individualism
is misunderstood today as a moral statement towards being egocentric and
leading to an existence of isolation and self-absorbed individuals. These
secluded and careless people are ironically against the fundamental values of
being Liberal. The whole idea of Liberalism is to believe in spontaneous
cooperation of humans and the division of labor in a complex society in order
to achieve greater unplanned ends. Individualism signifies that there is no
other way to achieve superior ends in a society except for that spontaneous and
free cooperation of individuals. This entire system stands on a profound human
humbleness; it states that man is not perfectly rational and intelligent, but
instead fallible. We evidently need the course of social interactions in order
to improve and make the best of our own very imperfect individuals
possible.
True
Liberals believe in cooperation and not isolation as the only way of
perpetuating societies. The fundamental point in this cooperation is that it
has to be free and spontaneous, rooted in individual choice. This parallels the
opposing coercive and controlling entity deciding cooperation for individuals.
Individualism therefore means that the only way to understand complex social
phenomena is through spontaneous individual actions and collaboration of free
men. Unfortunately the new “Liberals” after the French Revolution misunderstood
freedom for forced national cooperation and social planning.
Real
Individualism as mentioned is an attitude of complete humility towards
individual capacities and limitation of knowledge. The fact that we don’t know
how the whole society works and our severely limited capacities due to our
human entity, pushes us to rely completely on the rest of society and on the
capacity of others. This view of society
comes from a profound understanding of tolerance towards others people’s views,
opinions and beliefs. And it stands literally in the opposite end of the
intellectual framework of authoritarianism. Those people seeking control who
undermine individual freedom are as Hayek defined, “The Socialist of all
Parties” and are present in socialist as well as in conservative parties.
Consequently,
as Professor Hayek affirmed, Conservatism much like socialism undermines the
fundamental principles of individual freedom and the values of an open society.
This is similar to Socialism since both create preconditions for further
authoritarianism and tyranny. One of the foundations of conservative thinking
is their attitude towards change, especially in the social sphere and involving
people’s moral values. This position clearly stands contrarily to Liberal
beliefs. Liberals embrace and encourage spontaneous and radical changes even if
we cannot foresee where they might lead us. Contrarily, Conservatives will
instantly use the State’s power in order to prevent or limit such radical
changes. Therefore they are intrinsically reluctant to the spontaneous forces,
such as those of the market. As Professor Hayek said, “the conservative feels
safe and content only if they are assured that some higher wisdom watches and
supervises change.”
Hayek
understood that this reluctance to fundamental social change comes from two
basic conservatism characteristics: the fondness for authority and their
deficiency in understanding the relevance of spontaneous forces. Moreover,
Professor Hayek established that this affinity with authority intrinsically
implies to conservatives that the authority’s actions are not to weaken but
only to restrain within defined boundaries, but definitely to be use. Hence the
power that dictates the authority, clashes with Liberalism’s core moral. As
Hayek stated, “It can probably be said that a conservative does not object to
coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the
right purposes.” Therefore as long as Conservatives believe that their morals
and knowledge are superior, they cannot be considered true fundamental
advocators of freedom.
In
conclusion, we can clearly understand that true Liberals are neither
conservative nor selfish. Liberals are against imposed fraternity but encourage
free and natural organization. Liberals support equality but oppose the mirage
of equality imposed by a central authority. Liberals are not against
organization but disagree with organization imposed from above. True Liberals
believe that humans have several motivations in their life which drive their
actions, and one of these is self-interest. It is not our moral duty to
determine if that motivation should be at the top or at the bottom of an
imposed social moral scale; our job is to provide a correct framework in which
men are allowed to freely decide which motivation will influence their actions.
That will lead to a greater and beneficial unexpected end for the whole
society.
Sources
F.A. Hayek.
Individualism and Economic Order, “Individualism: True and False,” the
University of Chicago Press, 1948.
F.A. Hayek.
The Counter Revolution of Science, Studies on the Abuse of Reason, “Scientism -and
the Study of Society,” the Free Press, 1952.
Ralph Raico.
“Classic Liberalism and the Austrian School,” the Ludwig von Mises Institute
Press, 2012.
F.A. Hayek.
“Why I am not a Conservative,” The Constitution of Liberty, the University of
Chicago Press, 1960.
No comments:
Post a Comment