The Six Principles of Classical Liberalism
We need to draw a distinction between politics and political philosophy. Political philosophy asks: what should the government aim to do? Politics asks: how should it do it? The former is about values, which makes it a part of Ethics, whereas the latter is simply about delivery.
Obviously if you don’t agree on the ‘what’ you’re rarely going to agree on the ‘how’. However, this fact seems to be lost on most politicians/commentators/journalists who express genuine incredulity at their opponent’s views. “How can he possibly think raising the top rate of tax to 60% is a good idea? Doesn’t he realise that will stunt growth?” Or “how can he want to cut taxes for the rich? Does he realise that inequality’s only getting worse?”
What both sides fail to see is that their opponent’s views make complete sense if you share their political philosophy. The second speaker is probably perfectly aware that high marginal tax rates hurt growth, but he thinks it’s worth it for greater equality. The first speaker doesn’t think inequality is an issue, and so he sees only the economic downsides without agreeing there are any upsides.
All of this background disagreement goes undisclosed and undiscussed, with the result that both parties think their opposite number is either a moron or just plain evil. This is the danger of discussing politics without having political philosophy in mind.
It is in that spirit that I humbly tender ‘the six principles of Classical Liberalism’. If you disagree, great! We can have an interesting discussion about it. If you agree, awesome! Now we can chat politics and work out how to make things better (from our perspective).
In essence, Classical Liberal political philosophy can be reduced to four moral principles:
The Coercion Principle — Coercion is only justified to prevent the coercion of others.
This is just a variant of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” The reason I’ve gone for ‘coercion’ instead of ‘harm’ is because it avoids getting into a tricky conversation about how one defines ‘harm’, which always end up missing the point.
The Welfare Principle — There is a minimum quality of life beneath which no individual should be allowed to sink.
Not exactly controversial, although there is a sensible debate to be had about what the ‘minimum quality of life’ would be. Clearly the minimum quality in a wealthy country such as Britain will be different to that in a poor country such Moldova. A simple solution is just to allow different parties to present their own viewpoint on what a minimum standard would look like and let the voting public decide.
The Property Principle — The only legitimate reason to deprive someone of their property is to provide a service which, if it is provided to anyone, is necessarily provided to all, or to ensure compliance with the Welfare Principle.
Perhaps more controversial. The way I often justify it is with a parable. If a banker accidentally dropped his wallet next to a beggar, would the beggar have the right to take the money? No. Why? Because it’s not his money. The fact that he needs the money more than the banker is not relevant. The point is that property rights matter. Their violation feels wrong, and that, ultimately, is all moral principles are, a widely-held feeling.
The Equality Principle — So long as everyone enjoys a minimum quality of life, there is nothing morally wrong with inequality.
This is also likely to be controversial, although perhaps less so in combination with the minimum welfare principle. When most people say they object to inequality what they really mean is they object to destitution, especially when there are people who are so far from destitute who seem not to care about the plight of their fellow man. This is a perfectly reasonable position. However, in a hypothetical world where the state has abolished destitution, inequality loses its moral connotations. What does it matter if you shop at M&S and I shop at Iceland so long as we both have food?
These philosophical principles combine with a couple of empirical premises to create pretty much the entire Classical Liberal political framework.
The Competition Principle — Competitive markets are almost always better than Governments at delivering goods and services.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, by taking control of a service the Government puts itself in a monopoly position, which immunises it to the motivating effects of competition. Secondly, politicians are incentivized to win votes, which isn’t necessarily done by taking long term decisions. Thirdly, politicians are spending other people’s money on services they won’t necessarily use, which means they have little incentive to spend that money wisely.
The Power Principle — Power should be concentrated as close to the individual as possible.
This is why devolution is such a good idea. The more steps there are between the person wielding power and the person for whom it is wielded the higher the chance that the decisions they make will not reflect the priorities or the peculiar circumstances of that community. It also increases the opportunities for corruption.
If you agree with all of the above, then you’re probably quite relaxed about individuals taking drugs or offering their services as a prostitute. You’re likely to be in favour of a Citizens Income or something equivalent. I’d imagine you object to taxation where it goes beyond the funding of public goods, and especially when it’s used simply to redistribute wealth. And you’re probably a free-marketeer who favours greater devolution of power.
If you’re all of these things, then you’re probably a Classical Liberal. If you don’t agree, you’re probably something else. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, why not follow me on Twitter. You might also like some of the other things I’ve written, such as ‘Fixing Britain’s Broken Democracy’ and ‘Why I Voted Leave’.
The Individualist
29th October 2016
