Egalitarianism Revisited

Patrick CullenAssociate Professor of Justice StudiesSouthern New Hampshire University

Gregory M. RandolphAssociate Professor of Economics

Southern New Hampshire University

Michael TastoAssociate Professor of Economics

Southern New Hampshire University

The Great Recession and the resulting economic impact on lower-income families and

individuals have reinvigorated the discussion surrounding economic and social inequality. A

great deal of research has analyzed economic inequality in recent years, perhaps best highlighted

by the reception of Piketty’s (2014) work that details the growing concentration of wealth in the

hands of the richest individuals in the world. While economists debate the extent of the

challenges associated with income inequality and dispute the policies that should be considered

to improve the lives of the poor, policy-makers and the general public have joined the discussion

with widely differing views on how to address the issue. Although there are no policies that all

parties support, almost all parties ultimately agree that every individual should have the

opportunity to succeed. This ongoing debate has revived the discussion surrounding the

philosophy of egalitarianism.

While egalitarianism is generally utilized to refer to equality across individuals, there is

little agreement on exactly what should be equal across people or how to attain equality. The

classical liberal scholar values the freedom of the individual above all else, suggesting that

egalitarianism in the eyes of the classical liberal primarily consists of the protection of individual

1

freedoms across all people to ensure equality in the sense of exercising personal freedoms.

However, the social liberal definition of egalitarianism has evolved over time and may vary

substantially across sources. In addition to the support of the equality of opportunity across

individuals, many social liberals currently support a definition of egalitarianism that

encompasses equality of other issues that may include eliminating economic inequality.

While egalitarianism is not necessarily the stated policy goal of the U.S. government, it is

important to note that concepts associated with egalitarianism have served as stated objectives

since the founding of the country and remain crucial to policy determination today. President

Barack Obama stated, “We all share a responsibility to move this country closer to our

founding vision that no matter who you are, or where you come from, here in America, you

can decide your own destiny” (Obama, 2013), reinforcing the importance of equality when

sharing a number of policy ideas through a speech on improving the economy for the middle

class. Given the reliance and general acceptance of the importance of equal opportunity as a

basis for policy decisions, it is critical to properly define and evaluate both the meaning of

egalitarianism and the best criteria to target to support an environment that best provides

opportunities for all citizens.

In this paper, we review the concept of egalitarianism with a focus on the differences

between the alternative definitions of egalitarianism supported by classical liberal thinkers and

the views of social liberals1. Major developments in social liberal scholarship throughout the

nineteenth century are examined to highlight how the definition of egalitarianism has evolved

over time. The challenges associated with a broad view of egalitarianism that encompasses

both process and outcomes are critiqued, resulting in suggestions regarding the concepts that

1 The term social liberal is utilized throughout this paper to refer to the general views of social liberals in the U.S. While views vary across individuals, broad social liberal views are contrasted with classical liberal views in this paper.

2

should be included when considering egalitarian philosophy. We ultimately offer a definition

of egalitarianism that is consistent with classical liberal thought that can be utilized for policy

guidance and provide evidence that policies consistent with the protection of individual rights

can help to attain some of the outcomes associated with social liberalism.

Egalitarianism: Classical Liberalism vs. Social Liberalism

While classical liberal thinkers and supporters of social liberalism share some of the same

sentiment toward the concept of equal opportunities across individuals, the two views differ

radically in their thoughts on egalitarianism. Although some supporters of classical liberalism

may argue that egalitarianism is inherently incompatible with classical liberal views based on a

socially liberal definition of egalitarianism, a review of the foundation of classical liberal

scholarship suggests that egalitarianism can be defined in a way that is consistent with classical

liberalism. While an examination of all the contributions of classical liberal scholarship is

beyond the scope of this paper, the consideration of several of the most critical works in the field

of classical liberal scholarship provides the backbone for a classical liberal egalitarian

philosophy.

Components of classical liberalism can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman

thinkers. However, Sturgis (1994) notes in her review of the rise of classical liberalism that the

origins of classical liberalism as a philosophical mentality can be largely attributed to the works

of John Locke. While Locke advanced a number of ideas that help to build the foundation for

classical liberalism, it is perhaps his work on rights theory and natural law that is the strongest

contribution. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1690 [1960]) outlines the argument in favor

of unalienable individual rights rooted in the protection of private property. Locke’s work

3

ultimately defends political and religious freedom as well, setting the stage for the classical

liberal scholars that would further the philosophy in the following century.

The Scottish Enlightenment period that spanned the majority of the eighteenth century is

associated with a number of intellectuals who contributed to classical liberal scholarship. Most

notable of all was Adam Smith and his innovative analysis of the market process. Smith ardently

defended property rights, arguing in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759 [2002]) that the

violation of property rights is perhaps the most outrageous violation that can be imposed on an

individual aside from murder. Smith utilized his analysis of the market process to defend

freedom of trade and refute the popular mercantilist philosophy of the era.

French scholars also contributed greatly to the development of classical liberalism during

the same century as a result of the French Enlightenment and the work of the French Physiocrats

(Sturgis, 1994). Anne Robert Jacques Turgot’s writings offer some of the strongest contributions

to classical liberalism, effectively arguing that complete freedom in trade benefits all parties

involved in the market process and should be implemented as a government policy (Turgot,

1793). Further contributions to the classical liberal philosophy occurred during the American

Revolution and the founding of the new country. Bernard Bailyn (1967) notes that the concepts

of personal liberties and the protection of private property were core components of the ideology

behind the American Revolution. These concepts are ultimately formalized in the Declaration of

Independence. Claude-Frederic Bastiat continued to make the classical liberal case through the

nineteenth century, arguing in The Law (1850 [2007]) that governments must protect personal

liberties and property through law. He contended that policies aimed at promising other positive

rights and redistributing resources from some parties to others fundamentally conflicted with the

4

protection of individual rights and provided the government with a mechanism to gain unlimited

power.

Classical liberal scholarship continued to develop throughout the twentieth century

through contributions from scholars who ultimately highlighted the importance of the protection

of personal liberties. The importance of considering the individual actor as the focal point for

analysis instead of concentrating on aggregate measures of the economy was highlighted by Carl

Menger (1871 [1994]) and Ludwig von Mises (1922 [1981]), helping to refocus considerations

on personal freedoms and the impact on the individual. Friedrich Hayek (1944, 1960, 1976)

defended personal property rights as the cornerstone of personal liberty, effectively arguing that

individuals are free to make decisions on their own to pursue their goals only when property is

protected. Milton Friedman’s (1962) Capitalism and Freedom highlights the importance of

economic freedom in supporting political freedom and economic growth, broadly making the

case for personal liberties. James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock (1962) also deserve credit for

identifying the incentives of politicians and policy-makers who do not necessarily support

policies that benefit constituents, reinforcing the importance of individual freedoms.

This brief review of classical liberal scholarship offers guidance toward the construction

of a definition of egalitarianism that is consistent with the classical liberal philosophy. Above all

else, the classical liberal values the protection of individual rights and liberties. The foundation

of these rights consists of the protection of person and property. Additionally, personal freedom

in the spheres of speech, religion, and other individual liberties are paramount to the classical

liberal. Further, the ability to participate freely in market activities are a critical component of the

philosophy as well. In order for egalitarianism to be consistent with classical liberal philosophy,

5

the answer to “what” should be equal across individuals is ultimately the equal protection of

individual rights and liberties.

While social liberals may generally support the liberties discussed above to some degree,

modern social liberals are often willing to concede the personal rights of some individuals in

order to attempt to improve or equalize the outcomes for other individuals in the name of

egalitarianism. While a great deal of debate exists within the philosophy, social liberals expand

the realm of “what” should be equalized to include the equality of economic condition in

addition to the equality of opportunity and protection of individual liberties (Arneson, 2013). A

great deal of debate exists within the social liberal movement regarding exactly which conditions

should be targeted for equalization and how to accomplish these goals, but support for the

inclusion of economic condition is a component of the social liberal philosophy in general.

The remainder of this paper is devoted to exploring how the social liberal mindset

developed throughout the twentieth century with a specific focus on several critical scholarly

developments during the time period, reviewing the challenges associated with the current social

liberal view, and offering a redefined vision of egalitarianism that is consistent with classical

liberal philosophy that can be utilized for policy purposes. We contend that this redefined

egalitarianism can actually help to achieve many of the stated goals of social liberals.

Major Contributions to the Social Liberal View on Egalitarianism

When considering the social liberal view of egalitarianism, trends in philosophical inquiry and

their impact on political theory serve to explain the shift from a classical liberal approach. This

shift includes several notable characteristics, including: a transition from an individual rights

ethos to collective rights ethos; a growing acceptance of regulatory policy in support of wealth

6

transference; greater international dialogue advancing positive rights; and the development of

contemporary theories of global justice. These trends are best represented by Karl Marx, Arthur

Pigou, analysis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and John Rawls.

Marxism

One of the basic tenets for economic growth in modern market-based economies is economic

freedom. Different cultures or societyies view the extent of this freedom differently. The

Heritage Foundation provides an annual ranking for countries based the rule of law, limited

government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. Economic growth and prosperity are

associated with higher scores of economic freedoms. Thus, defending property rights, decreased

government spending, or fewer regulations can foster an environment for growth.

Governments, individuals, and society constantly search out new ways to improve living

conditions for constituents or themselves. Increasing economic freedom in a country is one way

to achieve that goal. However, there can be many challenges that prohibit a country from

creating this environment for growth and prosperity. Historical traditions, dictatorships, corrupt

governments, crony capitalism, and/or defective institutions can prevent society from achieving

more economic freedom.

This pursuit of prosperity for society is essentially a case of maximizing welfare for

society. However, Karl Marx posits that society is enhanced when it achieves greater equality

among individuals and argues for the redistribution of resources according to what one’s labor

contributes to society to help achieve that equality. Marx’s principle of equality lies within his

defense of human rights as illustrated in his writing on “The Jewish Question”. The

aforementioned writing clearly exhibits Marx’s species being argument; whereby he

7

subordinates freedoms of religion, liberty, and property to concepts of equality and security

(Marx, 1843[1978]). In this piece, Marx provides a clear refutation of the classical, liberal

perspective in favor of a collectivist ideology. By viewing man at his zenith as associated with

the species being, Marx contends human emancipation is only accomplished when man absorbs

himself into the abstract citizenry (Marx, 1844). This concept begs a positivist approach in policy

as man is defined by the progress of the collective. Negative rights – embraced by classical

liberalism – are viewed as separating man from society and himself and deemed inherently

problematic. The influence of this Marxist perspective is profound in determining policy as

illustrating is the following sections regarding the drafting of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights. This Marxist approach, adopted in discourse for the past several decades, stands

in contrast to the economic freedom index which incorporates a wider variety of measurable

indexes.

Welfare Economics

The current social liberal view is also influenced by Author Pigou’s (1912, 1932) view on social

welfare (based primarily on economic welfare) and his work on the redistribution of resources.

According to Pigouvian thinking, society is better off if a country’s national income is

redistributed to lower-income citizens. Pigou argued that all individuals essentially derive the

same utility from the consumption of goods and services through income, with a premium placed

on consumption at lower income levels. This results in an improvement in the social welfare

function when income is redistribution from higher-earning individuals to lower-income

individuals. This version of a social welfare function provides a theoretical justification for the

8

continual transfer of resources from wealthier individuals to poorer individuals until income is

equalized across all parties under certain assumptions.

Pigou is also commonly known for his Pigouvian tax, which essentially utilizes a tax to

achieve an efficient outcome in the presence of a negative externality. Since the concentration of

income in the hands of a few could potentially be classified by the social liberal thinker as a

negative externality borne upon society, the social welfare of society can therefore be increased

by implementing a tax on the wealthy and redistributing it to others. The after-tax outcome

would represent the more efficient outcome for society. While a great deal of scholarship

challenges Pigou’s views on welfare economics, utilization of cardinal utility to derive a social

welfare function, and the necessity of Pigouvian taxes, his work along with the scholarship of

other economists in the area of welfare economics helps to provide a rationale and methodology

to accomplish social liberal egalitarian goals.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides a clear example

of the international promulgation of social liberal egalitarian principles (United Nations, 1948). It

also represents the continued departure from the classical liberal perspective. The UDHR was

drafted by the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council in

1946 following the end of World War II and in response to the Holocaust. The document,

comprised of thirty articles, was promulgated by the United Nations in 1948. These articles begin

with provisions which are based squarely in natural rights, negative rights, and classical liberal

theory. Articles 1 through 21 are largely of this character and provide a fundamental framework

for freedom and equality. However, as the document progresses, the social liberal egalitarian

9

approach becomes most obvious. Articles 22 through 29 are largely positive, economic, and

social in nature (Hayden, 2001). These articles are based in the collective ideology central to the

social liberal egalitarianism.

Articles 22 through 24 of the UDHR establish basic economic rights of citizens. Unlike Articles

1 through 21, which were influenced by the Bill of Rights of the United States and classical

liberal theory, these provisions define rights theory, and equality, from a positive [Is “positivist”

the correct word here? Aren’t these rights “positive” (as distinct from “negative”) rather than

referring to the positivist theory of knowledge? – yes, I agree that positive is the correct

terminology] and collectivistic perspective. These rights include both a right to social security

and an entitlement to “economic, social and cultural rights”. Also, explicated as human rights are

a right to work, unemployment protections, and a right to unionize. One of the more often cited

examples of the positive economic rights dictated in the UDHR is Article 24 which reads:

“[e]veryone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours

and periodic holidays with pay.” By defining these rights from this social liberal egalitarian

perspective, serious economic implications exist particularly when viewed from a public choice

perspective.

Articles 25 through 29 of the UDHR propound basic social rights of citizens (United Nations,

1948). In keeping with the previous three articles, the influence is more social liberal egalitarian

than classical liberal. These rights are also expansive with major impact on economic policy.

Specifically, the UDHR supports rights to a standard of living, food, clothing, housing, medical

care, social services, and security. Several provisions expressly state the right is to be

10

government subsidized and/or compulsory (i.e. right to education). Articles 28 and 29 provide

the most transparent example of this positive, collective approach. These articles expressly link

the flourishing of the citizen with the government at an international, or global, level.

Contrary to a classical liberal approach, Article 28 states: “[e]veryone is entitled to a

social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can

be fully realized.” This language begs a global order with coercive power to allow

implementation. If a realist, or Hobbesian, perspective in international relations is assumed, the

potential for such global order raises skepticism (Beitz, 1970). It also assumes the full realization

of freedom is incumbent upon such order. Article 29 further advances this positive and

collectivist egalitarianism by stating: “[e]veryone has duties to the community in which alone the

free and full development of his personality is possible.” Again, this assumes the state as the

central instrument in development of the person. This is in stark contrast to a classic liberal

perspective which provides greater deference to, and respect for, the individual and their

decisions within the community.

For example, John Locke, and even the disputed “Lockean proviso”, operates from a

distinctive deontological framework. Whereas the UDHR places the duty on governments – at

the international level – to secure right and freedoms, Locke’s perspective is placed on the

individual and their determinations when acting in community (Locke, 1690 [1960]). Therefore,

the duty runs from person to person and includes an inherent negative right, or freedom from

encroachment, which is recognized by Locke to ensure the good of the other. Therefore, the

flourishing of the person is less tied to the state and their regulatory authority and more

correlated with the individual as a community member.

11

Rawls and Global Justice Theory

The propagation of Marxist rights theory, development of Pigouvian welfare economics, and

drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights preceded and contributed to the recent

scholarship in the area of global justice theory. These four trends have served to advance social

liberal egalitarianism and create further separation from its classical liberal roots. Global justice

theory, in particular, has seen increased attention among philosophers over the past twenty years.

In this section, the scholarship of John Rawls exemplifies the contemporary treatment of the core

egalitarian concept of equality in this burgeoning global justice context.

John Rawls analyzes justice in the context of international law by construction of the

original position where actors (i.e. nations) choose principles of justice (Rawls, 1999). Rawls

assumes a capacity for justice and understanding of the good as being necessary in emerging

pluralistic societies. Rawls further states it is possible for these societies to determine a political

element, or overlapping consensus, which then allows for a global public reason. This global

public reason is then supported by Rawls’ principle of toleration, which together serve as the

core elements of his political philosophy. This philosophy has influenced numerous

contemporary global justice theorists, including Joshua Cohen. Cohen (2006, p. 226 add page

number. Is emphasis in the original quotation? – the emphasis is in the original quotation. I

added a few words to complete the entire quote) borrows from Rawls when stating, the

“conception of human rights is part of an ideal of global public reason: a shared basis for

political argument that expresses a common reason that adherents of conflicting religious,

philosophical, and ethical traditions can reasonably be expected to share.”

Rawls (1971) also extends his premise of justice as fairness as applying in the

international sphere. He holds distinct principles (e.g. the toleration principal) must be

12

administered in the international context to advance global justice. By applying his original

position and veil of ignorance, Rawls develops two principles of distributive justice in this global

context. These are the equal liberty principle and the difference principle. Though the equal

liberty and difference principles both advance the current, social liberal egalitarian definition, the

latter is more clearly positive; extending well beyond a classical liberal interpretation.

Similar to egalitarianism requiring equality in some form, the equal liberty principle holds

individuals have equal claim to basic human rights and liberties. Further, Rawls’ equal liberty

principal holds one person’s schedule of basic human rights and liberties should be compatible

with the same schedule of others. Again, this principle advances a fundamental egalitarian

element particularly as it exists to secure basic rights for those without wealth or power. In short,

this principle establishes a baseline level of rights and liberties shared by all citizens; thereby

also creating a fundamental principle of equality across all classes of citizens. This equal liberty

principle ensures only political rights which he deems fundamental to society. Therefore, this

aspect of Rawls theory does have a more obvious foundation in a classical liberal and natural

rights approach. The equal liberty principle also has the earmarks of a negative rights theory not

unlike the humanitarian duty concept proffered by Thomas Nagel (2005).

As previously referenced, Rawls does not advance the equal liberty principal solely. Though in

cases of conflict, the equal liberty principal supersedes the difference principal, Rawls also

supports economic and social rights in his global justice theory (Rawls, 1971). It is the difference

principle which seeks to remedy economic and social inequalities via transference or

distribution. Rawls advocates for these distributive principles to place those without power, or

13

wealth, in the best possible circumstance. These economic and social rights are relatively

positive as they require the active participation of citizenry as opposed to mere forbearance

(Donnelly, 2007). Therefore, they are also more collectivist.

In addition, Rawls approach is actually considered a less positive approach than the

cosmopolitan who recognizes a shared community, identity, and morality beyond sovereign

territory. This approach requires even more expansive global justice principles. Regardless, by

extending beyond the equal liberty principle into social and economic rights goals of the

difference principle, Rawls advances the social liberal egalitarian perspective on equality like

Marx, Pigou, and Articles 22 through 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

As John Rawls’ scholarship established a foundation for contemporary global justice theorists its

impact cannot be overstated.

Why Egalitarianism Grounded in Classical Liberal Philosophy?

The preceding section offers insight into the development of the social liberal definition of

egalitarianism that has evolved over the past century. This evolution has resulted in the

consideration of economic outcome equality along with the equality of opportunity when

considering egalitarianism. While many of the goals of social liberals are laudable and assisting

the poorest members of society in climbing the economic ladder should remain a focal point of

economic scholarship, we contend that the social liberal definition of egalitarianism is self-

defeating when utilized as a policy goal and should be abandoned in favor of a version of

egalitarianism that is consistent with classical liberalism. This form of egalitarianism is rooted in

the protection of individual liberties, including the right to personal property, protection of

individual freedoms, and the ability to participate freely in markets. It is important to note that

14

this definition does not prohibit assisting lower-income individuals through the provision of

some type of safety net through private or public measures, but rather rules out the pursuit of

economic equalization across citizens through the violation of the individual rights of some

individuals.

Our support for this classical liberal definition of egalitarianism is not simply an

ideological convenience to agree with classical liberal views. The primary problem with the new

socially liberal definition of egalitarianism is that it requires the violation of the individual

liberties of some (or all) members of society in order to attempt to accomplish other equality

outcomes. When utilized for policy purposes, this requires weighing the importance of the

personal rights and freedoms of some individuals compared to others without any clear guidance

on “what” society should aim to equalize. This concern is not new, as Frédéric Bastiat (1850

[2007]) recognized that affording the government the ability to violate individual liberties in

order to further equalize economic outcomes may result in unlimited growth in the power of

government. This is particularly concerning given the lack of clear methodology available to

determine whose rights are protected and the incentives of policy-makers highlighted by classical

liberal and public choice scholars.

In addition to the theoretical support for a definition of egalitarianism supported by

classical liberal philosophy, a great deal of research on the relationship between the protection of

personal liberty and economic outcomes also supports the classical liberal view. Numerous

studies examine the relationship between economic freedom and economic outcomes with the

majority of scholarship finding that greater levels of economic freedom are associated with better

economic performance (Berggren, 2003; Gwartney, Lawson, and Hall, 2013; Hall and Lawson,

2014). While a review of the literature regarding the relationship between economic freedom and

15

income inequality is mixed (Bennett and Nikolaev, 2015), many studies offer encouraging results

depending on the methodology and sample selected. Further, while some highlight the goal of

equalizing economic outcomes, it is important to note that the trend toward global economic

liberalization in the past forty years has resulted in a substantial decline in the number of

individuals living in extreme poverty throughout the world (World Bank, 2015). These findings

suggest that the absolute well-being of many of the global poor are improving, although a great

deal of work remains.

Conclusion

We reassess the concept of egalitarianism by examining the contributions of classical liberal and

social liberal scholarship. A great deal of research in the past decade has expanded the scope of

the social liberal definition of egalitarianism, but we argue that this definition that includes

equality of economic outcomes requires the violation of the basic liberties of some individuals in

an attempt to equalize outcomes across other members of society. The social liberal

egalitarianism is self-contradicting and ultimately unlikely to result in the desired outcomes of

social liberals due to the difficulty in selecting which rights to protect and the incentives facing

policymakers. Based on a review of classical liberal ideas and an examination of the relationship

between personal freedom and economics outcomes, we suggest that egalitarianism be redefined

to be consistent with the classical liberal school of thought if it is to be utilized for policy

decisions.

A great deal of work remains to communicate the value of classical liberal ideas for

policy purposes to the general public and policymakers. Survey data seems to suggest that the

majority of Americans value freedom of speech and religion, while roughly half of Americans

16

believe that the market system and constitutional protections are values that are stronger in the

U.S. than in other countries (Cohn, 2012). Further research exploring the relationship between

personal freedoms and both economic opportunity and the economic condition of low-income

individuals are critical components in the advancement of classical liberal ideals. Additionally,

developments in classical liberal philosophy and further discussion surrounding appropriate

policy goals are paramount to the ultimate acceptance and success of a classical liberal

egalitarian mindset.

References

Arneson, Richard. 2013. Egalitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Economics. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/.

Bailyn, Bernard. 1967. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press.

Bastiat, Claude-Frederic. 2007. The Law. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute. (Orig. pub. 1850).

Beitz, Charles. 1970. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bennett, Daniel L. and Boris Nikolaev. 2015. On the Ambiguous Economic Freedom-Inequality Relationship. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2467222.

Bentham, Jeremy. 1907. The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Orig. pub. 1789).

Berggren, Niclas. 2003. The Benefits of Economic Freedom: A Survey. The Independent Review 8, no. 2: 193-211.

Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Cohen, Joshua. 2006. The Egalitarian Conscience: Essays in Honour of G.A. Cohen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohn, Bob. 2012. 21 Charts that Explain American Values Today. The Atlantic. Available at:

17

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/21-charts-that-explain-american-values-today/258990/.

Donnelly, Jack. 2007. International Human Rights, Third Edition. New York City: Westview Press.

Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gwartney, James D., Robert A. Lawson, and Joshua C. Hall. 2013. Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report 2013. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.

Hall, Joshua. C. and Robert A. Lawson. 2014. Economic Freedom of the World: An Accountingof the Literature. Contemporary Economic Policy 32: 1-19.

Hayden, Patrick. 2001. The Philosophy of Human Rights: Paragon Issues in Philosophy. St. Paul: Paragon House.

Hayek, F.A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hayek, F.A. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hayek, F.A. 1976. Law, Legislation, and Liberty. Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Locke, John. 1960. “An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent, and End of Civil Government” in Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: (Orig. pub. 1690).

Marx, Karl. 1978. On the Jewish Question. in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert Tucker. Pages 26-46. New York: Norton & Company. (Orig. pub. 1843)

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1998. Communist Manifesto. New York: Signet Classics. (Orig. pub. in 1848).

Menger, Carl. 1994. Principles of Economics. New York: Libertarian Press. (Orig. pub.1871).

Mises, Ludwig von. 1981. Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics. (Orig. pub. 1922).

Nagel, Thomas. 2005. The Problem of Global Justice. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.

Obama, Barack. Feb. 15, 2013. Remarks by the President on Strengthening the Economy for the Middle Class. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/15/remarks-president-strengthening-economy-middle-class.

18

Pigou, Arthur. 1912. Wealth and Welfare. London: Macmillan.

Pigou, Arthur. 1932. The Economics of Welfare, 4th Edition. London: Macmillan.

Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the 21st Century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press.

Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Smith, Adam. 2002. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Orig. pub. 1759).

Sturgis, Amy H. 1994. The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism. The LockeSmith Institute. Available at: http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/liberalism_essay/the_rise1.html

Turgot, Anne Robert Jacques. 1793. Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth. (Condorcet, trans.) Library of Economics and Liberty. 15 December 2016. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/trgRfl1.html.

The United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

The World Bank. 2015. World Bank Forecasts Global Poverty to Fall Below 10% for the First Time. The World Bank Press Release. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030.

19