For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. 2 Īll forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected the classical liberal notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. Nearly 265 million people were killed by their own governments (in addition to all the deaths from wars!) in the 20th century – more than in any previous century and possibly more than in all previous centuries combined. Partly for that reason, it was the century of dictatorship, depression and war. By contrast, the 20th century was the century that rejected classical liberalism. Partly for that reason it was also the century of ever-increasing economic and political liberty, relative international peace, relative price stability and unprecedented economic growth. The 19th century was the century of classical liberalism. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights. Further, people can both form governments and dissolve them. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. But following British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People thought they had only such rights as government elected to give them. In 1776, most people believed that rights came from government. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in the Declaration of Independence.
1īasically, classical liberalism is based on a belief in liberty. Many emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women. It permeates the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Classical Liberalism as an IdeologyĬlassical liberalism was the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. The classical liberal perspective will not solve this problem, but it will help us better understand it. The thoughtful voter may sometimes vote for the conservative, sometimes for the liberal and sometimes just abstain. What that leaves us with are candidates, platforms and political parties whose ideas are inconsistent and often incoherent. Just as people with similar tastes in food tend to frequent the same restaurants, people with the same tastes in politics tend to vote for the same candidates. What is chosen is a matter of taste rather than a matter of thought. Instead, they both reflect a process that is akin to picking items from a dinner menu. Neither view provides a coherent approach to politics, built up from first principles. Modern liberalism is not completely collectivist nor is it completely individualistic. Yet if this is the paramount political issue, why is it not forthrightly debated in presidential elections and in other contests for public office? The reason is that American political debates tend to be dominated by modern liberalism and modern conservatism - approaches to politics that are properly called “sociologies” rather than “ideologies.” Do individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness, as Thomas Jefferson thought and as the Declaration of Independence deemed self-evident? Or do we have an obligation to live our lives for the community or the state, as most societies have claimed throughout most of history?
In the history of politics, there is only one fundamental, abiding issue: It is individualism vs.
0 kommentar(er)
