John Locke
Written by ‘Classical Liberal’
[You can read Part I here]
Despite the fears of men of property, Europe witnessed a gradual increase in the electoral franchise during the 19th century – largely driven by the liberal rallying cry that ‘all men are created equal’. However, liberals also needed to balance the notion of majority rule with those who favoured that the majority’s power should be limited. The difficulty lay in achieving this balance in a way that was consistent with democratic ideals. How could the majority’s power be checked without conceding undue power to the propertied classes or some other elite group?
The liberal answer to the question of how to limit the powers of a democratic majority contained several strands. The first was a separation of powers – the division of power between government agencies with different functions, such as the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary. This system, and the checks and balances that make it work, is exemplified in the USA’s Constitution; the political rationale having been expounded in the Federalist papers (1787-1788) by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. Alternatively, separation of powers could also have been accomplished via a mixed constitution – where power is divided between a king, a hereditary chamber, and an elected parliament; like the form of government in Britain during the American Revolution. Indeed, the US Constitution also includes parts of a mixed constitution, like the dividing of the legislature into the House of Representatives, elected by the popular vote, and the Senate, whose members were initially selected by the state governments. As unenlightened sovereigns and unelected aristocrats continued to block the ambitions of the middle classes, they moved to embrace the idea of majority rule.
The second strand involved elections staggered to render the decisions of any particular majority open to the oversight of other majorities staggered over time. For example, in the USA one-third of the Senate is elected every two years for six year terms, members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, and presidents are chosen every four years. Thus, the majority that elects a House of Representatives every two years or a president every four years is different from the majority that elects one-third of the Senate two years before and the majority that chooses another third of the Senate two years after. They are then checked by the Constitution, which was ratified and amended by previous majorities. In Britain, an act of Parliament becomes part of the uncodified constitution as soon as it is passed; but, before moving on a very controversial issue, Parliament must seek a popular mandate, which constitutes a different majority than the one that elected it. Therefore, in a constitutional democracy, the power of the current majority is checked by the majorities that preceded and follow it.
The third strand of the answer is derived from liberalism’s fundamental commitment to individual freedom, which the limitation of power is intended to uphold. From this perspective, an individual is not just a citizen who shares a social contract with his or her fellow citizens but also someone with rights which the state must not encroach upon if majority rule is to have true meaning. A majority electoral verdict can only be achieved if people are free to share their views. This implies freedom of expression, freedom of association, and, most importantly, freedom from fear of oppression. An individual also has other rights apart from their role as a voter. These rights guarantee personal safety and, thus, protection from arbitrary arrest. Beyond them are rights that protect privacy. In a liberal democracy, some matters are no concern of the state. These matters include religion, and artistic expression, for example. For 18th and 19th century liberals these matters also included most of how individuals engaged in production and trade. Declarations proclaiming these rights included the British Bill of Rights (1689), the US Declaration of Independence (1776) and Constitution (1788), France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and many other documents throughout the world that took these declarations as their inspiration. These declarations asserted that there is much more to freedom than voting in elections; freedom is the fundamental right of individuals to live their own lives.
Economic foundations
The economic seeds of liberalism were also sown in Britain. By the 18th century, parliamentary checks were rendering it hard for British sovereigns to embark upon the same means of increasing national power as most European monarchs. They jockeyed for military supremacy, which rested upon a firm economic foundation. Mercantilist orthodoxy viewed international trade as a winner-takes-all contest – one country’s gain resulted in another’s loss. Therefore, governments acted to set prices, protect their producers from foreign competition, and safeguard economic information.
These ideas were soon challenged by liberal ideas. A group of French intellectuals known as the physiocrats suggested that unrestrained economic competition is the best way to generate wealth. They advised the government to ‘let it be, leave it alone’ (‘laissez faire, laissez passer’). The most influential advocate of laissez-faire was the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith argued that free trade benefits all parties because competition results in the production of more and better products at reduced prices. Giving people the freedom to follow their self-interest in an exchange economy founded upon the division of labour will improve the welfare of society as a whole. The self-interested person is connected to the public good as in an exchange economy he or she needs to serve others to serve himself or herself. However, this positive outcome is only achievable in a truly free market. Any other system, such as monopoly or nationalised, will cause regimentation, exploitation, and economic stagnation.
All economic systems must decide not just what will be produced but also how it will be distributed. In a market economy, both of these decisions are made via the price mechanism. The question of how society’s resources – capital, labour, and goods – should be employed is determined by the free choices of individual buyers and sellers. These choices are revealed in the bids that determine the price of a commodity. When the demand for something is high, its price increases, rendering it profitable for producers to increase supply; as supply equals demand, prices drop until producers move resources to other endeavours. Thereby, the free market delivers the nearest possible connection between what is wanted and what is produced. And, when it comes to the distribution of the wealth gained, the free market is claimed to guarantee a reward in relation to merit. This is based upon the assumption that in a truly competitive economy in which no one is prevented from engaging in economic activity, the money gained from an activity is a just measure of its worth to society.
This is based upon the notion of individuals as rational and self-interested economic actors seeking to minimise costs and maximise gains. As every individual knows their interests better than anyone else does, an individual’s interests could never be furthered, only stymied, by government interference in their economic activities.
[To be concluded tomorrow with Part III]
Photo by deemikay
Thanks to the author of this series.
I think I have learned something
It has made me realise that virtually everything I was ever taught in history was part of a continuing theme. I like, I would guess, many others have only been taught piecemeal as have later readings resulted in learning more bits about the bits we liked or those we never got round to.
I dearly wish this lecture had been laid out to me at the age of 11 or 12.
They say you need to learn from the past where you are presently going, they fail to ensure at the start that you have a map highlighting the stage points
Perhaps modern day students are better equipped, they seem to do more “projects” which maybe a subject is more intensely investigated, but apart from those who airbrush inconvenient events out of history I wonder if students even now are aware of the continuum or is this deemed to be university stuff.?
Nationalisation is disaster. Even the NHS ihas developed the same flaws that destroyed all the other Labour experiments. They all displayed similar splendid characteristics and similar flaws.How to identify them and get the best result. This has occupied my brain for 70 years. There must be a way . Funnily enough, the problem of Union or workplace society is difficult. For30 years I tried several ways of harnessing this for the benefit of the whole. It allways stumbled over pure greed. Greed bears no connection or relationship with value or effort, or even presence, all though it does seem related somehow to entitlement. Up until the 80 s there seemed to be a culture and community connection to limit these unearned demands. These seem to have been undermined. However the actual relative value of Money ( Investment } , money (earned ) money ( Inherited ) etc( Saved, borrowed , criminal etc) is baffling.
Whatever, you would have though that employers would have spent far far far more thought on this if only like me to mitigate Union greed, and encourage the better/reasoning/thoughtful knowledge in the endeavour generally . I have tried every sort of reward system I can think of with varying success, but the old basics are marvellous if you operate them seriously Such as Pension directorships, suggestion schemes, Board membership, economics and other business or simple education improvement. Business rarely uses much in the way of intellectual learning Insurance, short apprenticeships to get appreciation ( A Popular one was always a couple of days in the typing pool.
Just saying.Nationalisation is a disaster, Privatisation is a disaster, But all round the country are small towns with a family firm clinging to and supporting or supported by a family or local someone and with the odd remaining skills or patents or depreciated assets beseiged by apalling government and mass mindless psychology.
OK
But where is the rake off, the 75 %, 100 % The tax, commission. Thedirectorships ….
Not worth the effort.
These articles are quite fascinating, whoever wrote them.
Two points from today’s, part 2. 1) Labour of course, is people. People are not free to maximise their own gain or ‘profit’. People need somewhere to live. They have dependents, etc etc. So People cannot always move from one employment to another better paid employment. Or from one place to another.
2) Under ‘Staggered Elections’ we are told ‘before moving on a very contentious issue Parliament must seek a new mandate’. Well by hook or by crook that was certainly done when May failed to get her contentious issue through.
But IS BORIS’ DEAL equally contentious? MAYBE. And if it is, there is no way to seek a new mandate let alone get one.
It is not JUST the FTPA, though that has rather lulled us into accepting a fault in our Constitution.
Still, personally I’m now undecided about ‘The Deal’ – how good or bad it is, whether we’ll be out or in, whether it’s brexit or brino.
It MUST have been ‘cooking’ for a long time – ominous. And it obviously needs a lot of time for consideration. Which it is not going to get.
The privatisation of water hasn’t gone at all well.
Eg.
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2012/09/al-jazeera-maps-water-flashpoints-world-2/
On the box last night (Aljazeera). Sounds more like theft to me.
Harry I assume by your comment you are focusing on the folly or otherwise of the whole business of privatisation of previously public owned and directed. Utilities a la Maggie Thatcher.
I’m prepared to agree there are disadvantages indeed some disasters when placed in private hands, but for me,those drawbacks are nothing to those when left in authorities or their equivalents hands, who haven’t a clue on running any enterprise, never mind a country, are at the mercy of the worst aspects of unionism and any notion of actually providing an economical service to their customers -the voters.
However what really gets up my bracket is this instant wittering on about water shortages – world wide.
There are a few landlocked nations, but the majority of the globe has access to the oceans which contain what?
Yes WATER and according to some Global Warming enthusiasts much greater quantities of it in the near future sufficient to overwhelm large sections of the land and its populations.
Surely the answer lies in pumping it onto land where ever needed, thus depleting the oceans and wetting the land to mutual advantage.
Oh I know it’s a tad salty, but surely modern science and technology is up to providing wind or solar driven pumps to send it to wherever needed and the same method to establish desalination plants
No need for any points of water conflict