As regular readers know (recall); recall) after William Robertson (who together with Adam Smith coined the modern use of ‘liberal’), the Scottish historian, read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, he wrote Smith the following:
Maybe we should be distinguishing various kinds of liberalism. There is the economic liberalism that comes out of Smith and its fundamental assumptions are quite different to the democratic liberalism that arises from rational religion and is found in Locke and his female followers. The first involves a negative concept of liberty, the market should be free from arbitrary constraint. The second a positive concept, individual freedom is rational self-government, and political freedom government by non-arbitrary, rationally justifiable law.
Mercantilism is antagonistic to liberal principles applied internationally. That said, the principles- that individuals are the basic ethical/moral unit in society and all individuals are equally so, is foundational to Locke's reasoning on such matters. In a situation where potentially hostile powers are neighbors, preserving the political community is a reasonable goal of the polity, democratic or otherwise. How best to do it is a prudential issue. Interestingly, once two polities are liberal (representative) democracies, they have never warred on one another, something unknown to Locke and Smith alike.
Interested in your view on the importance of Locke’s political thought in C18 Britain. I had formed the view that he was most important in the US in this respect
Maybe we should be distinguishing various kinds of liberalism. There is the economic liberalism that comes out of Smith and its fundamental assumptions are quite different to the democratic liberalism that arises from rational religion and is found in Locke and his female followers. The first involves a negative concept of liberty, the market should be free from arbitrary constraint. The second a positive concept, individual freedom is rational self-government, and political freedom government by non-arbitrary, rationally justifiable law.
Hi Karen,
The view you describe is kind of my target!
Mercantilism is antagonistic to liberal principles applied internationally. That said, the principles- that individuals are the basic ethical/moral unit in society and all individuals are equally so, is foundational to Locke's reasoning on such matters. In a situation where potentially hostile powers are neighbors, preserving the political community is a reasonable goal of the polity, democratic or otherwise. How best to do it is a prudential issue. Interestingly, once two polities are liberal (representative) democracies, they have never warred on one another, something unknown to Locke and Smith alike.
Thank you
Interested in your view on the importance of Locke’s political thought in C18 Britain. I had formed the view that he was most important in the US in this respect
He seems rather important in lots of ways, but I think increasingly for reasons that are different than usually claimed.