What Is Neoclassical Liberalism?

Jason Brennan, an outstanding libertarian political philosopher who teaches at Georgetown University, has written Libertarianism as an introductory guide, and much of the material in it will be familiar to readers of the Mises Daily; but it deserves careful study by anyone interested in its subject. Brennan has a talent for explaining libertarian views in striking and effective ways. The book consists of 105 questions about libertarianism and Brennan's responses to them.

In defending libertarianism, Brennan stands resolutely against the consensus position of his fellow political philosophers. Today, books touting the virtues of deliberative democracy are ubiquitous; but Brennan dissents.[1] Libertarians

do not regard democratic participation and deliberation as the highest form of life. Many nonlibertarians have an almost religious reverence for democracy. They love democracy so much that they wish to see democracy in every aspect of life. They want democracy to be a way of living. They want everything open to democratic deliberation and decision making. Libertarians instead want to insulate people from political control. They do not want every decision to be subject to discussion. They believe one of the greatest freedoms of all is not having to justify yourself to others. If your entire life resembles a committee meeting, you are not free. (p. 69)

Brennan's objections would apply even to a democracy of the intelligent and informed; but in practice, democracy turns out to be rule by the incompetent. Brennan in his comments suggests a reborn Mencken:

Voters not only are systematically mistaken about basic economics, but they cannot figure out which candidates know more than they do in democracy incompetent leaders with false beliefs win. Libertarians say: If the candidates seem clueless, it is because the system works. (p. 72)

Brennan displays little respect for the chief icon of the American democratic tradition. He notes that

many Americans would rate Abraham Lincoln as the greatest president. Yet Lincoln fought the civil war not to free slaves, but to force the South to remain part of the United States. In the course of war, Lincoln suppressed habeas corpus, created the first national draft, suppressed free speech, censored and punished newspaper editors who criticized his war efforts, and was at least complicit in waging total war against innocent Southern civilians. By normal standards, this makes him a monster. (If I did these things, you would regard me as a vile and despicable person.)[2] (pp. 623)

If Brennan rejects democracy, what has he to put in its place? It will come as no surprise that his answer is libertarianism, but it is a different sort of libertarianism from that which the term will suggest to many of my readers. Followers of Murray Rothbard regard each person as a self-owner. Self-owners have the right to acquire property; and although the free market that results from implementing libertarian rights leads to greater prosperity than any alternative arrangement, the principal justification for these rights does not lie in their good consequences. To the contrary, they are natural rights.

To Brennan, this is not libertarianism sans phrase, but "hard libertarianism." It is but one of three forms of libertarianism, and not the one he prefers. Indeed, he says that in "some respects, it is an aberration inside classical liberal political thought" (p. 11).

What are the other forms? First is classical liberalism. Supporters of this position, though they favor the free market,

See the original post:
What Is Neoclassical Liberalism?