The ideas of liberalism

Heads up! This is an excerpt from my budding Zettelkasten.
I’ve done “digital gardening” for a couple years now and have a ton of random notes saved that I’d like to post online.
These are digital dumps of my latest notes, so they’re not complete and might be wrong. Point anything out in the comments!

This post serves as an index for the concept of liberalism, its ideas and different kinds.

Roots of Liberalism

Many ideas that would then be cohered into liberalism as we know it today are commonly seen in Greek, Roman and Reformist Christian writings.¹

The more commonly cited root of liberalism are the ideas of the eighteenth and nineteenth century.

Classical Liberalism

• An intense focus on the individual (and the freedom to seek individual pleasure—the pursuit of happiness).
• An unfettered market is the most efficient and effective means for encouraging autonomy and preventing anarchy
• A non-interventionist state, only protecting safety, competitive markets and individual rights (particularly private property)

Natural right vs. social contract

Although there was consensus on the role of the individual at the center of the state, early liberalism contained two conflicting strands:

• Locke: “Natural right”
  • Rights are prior to society.
  • Government is limited because it can’t overrule natural rights.
  • Natural rights to life, liberty and estate imply that the state’s legitimacy surges from its protection, not violation, of those rights.
  • -> ~Demands a narrow, minimal government~
• Hobbes: “Social contract”
  • Political authority is justified because individuals consent (explicitly or tacitly) to form a society and create institutions that secure peace, cooperation, and collective goods
  • The state may require individuals to give up some freedoms to gain security or social order
  • Legitimacy rests on agreement, not on individual moral law
  • -> ~Permits a stronger state authority if people consent to it~

Idk, I feel like I’m much more in agreement with Hobbes’ social contract analogy—but I understand where Locke’s absolutist natural right approach is coming from. The latter emphasizes that there is no relativism—there are inviolable natural rights that the state must protect, even if it’s unpleasant to us. That is a much more energizing statement.

I think there’s no need to be on either side here. There’s a middle ground in my mind: you can agree that there’s inviolable pre-political rights, such as conscience and due process, that shouldn’t be voted away. On the other hand, republics must be flexible and there is legitimacy owed to the vox populi.

The kinds of liberty

• Negative Liberty: Freedom From (Locke, other classicals)
  • Freedom from external interference, coercion or obstacles imposed by others (particularly the state).
  • You are free as long as nobody is stopping you.
• Positive Liberty: Freedom To (Rousseau, social democrats, modern liberals)
  • Freedom to achieve your goals and develop your capabilities—often requiring enabling conditions.
  • You’re free only if you have the real ability to act, not just the legal permission. Classical liberals (Hobbes, Locke) often emphasize the importance of negative liberty and the threat of state interference. Modern liberals see poverty, inequality and social conditions as a threat to actual freedom.

But wait, wouldn’t Hobbes support positive liberty?

Good question but no. Although Hobbes’ concept of the social contract implies that he’s comfortable with an expansionist state (as seen in Leviathan²), his purpose for supporting a bigger state isn’t the same as belief in the idea of positive liberty.

There are multiple ways to understand the need for a larger state. Some classical liberals, like da Hobbes, believe it could be necessary to infringe on some “natural” rights—the social contract–in order to ensure safety and order. However, this understanding limits itself to the assurance of liberal rights—not to the idea of capabilities and needs.

In his works, Hobbes supports a bigger state for security³, not for empowerment. Freedom is narrow (non-interference). The state is huge (for protection). Those two ideas aren’t in contradicition. These are ideas later fused together by Rosseau later on when egalitarian liberalism surges.

All in all, it’s about everyone’s different definitions of freedom. If you told Hobbes “you’re free if society gives you the tools to create your best life” he’d respond with “no, you’re free when nobody is physically stopping you, even if that means restricting the natural rights of some to protect the herd”. In logical terms:

$$PF \implies ExpState, \quad ExpState \centernot\implies PF$$

Egalitarian liberalism

todo

Etc

Maybe I should break this down into multiple notes—the point of a Zettelkasten is to have many ideas linked together? 😀

---

1. I didn’t quite know what these were, so I looked it up—they refer to early Protestant writings where social justice, freedom and ethical reasoning are valued. Progressive values are opposed to orthodox approaches in the wider culture of Christianism. ↩︎

2. Leviathan (Hobbes book) ↩︎

3. “Laws reduce liberty, but that loss is necessary for peace”. ↩︎