Classical Liberalism

Classical Liberalism

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

Project submitted to

Ms. xyz

(Faculty: Political Science)

Project submitted by

Semester I; Section: C

Roll no. 176

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITYRAIPUR, C.G.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY


I am highly elated to carry out my research on the topic, ‘Classical Liberalism’. I would like to

give my deepest regard to my course teacher Ms. , who held me with her immense advice,

direction and valuable assistance, which enabled me to march ahead with this topic. I would like

to thank my friends, who gave me their precious time for guidance and helped me a lot in

completing my project by giving their helpful suggestion and assistance. I would like to thankmy

seniors for their valuable support. I would also like to thank the library staff and computer lab

staff of my university for their valuable support and kind cooperation

Semester I

CONTENT



1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..…………………4

I. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………….6

II. OBJECTIVES……………………………………6

2. JOHN LOCKE AND THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT……………………..….7

3. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS ………….…………..…11

4. CONCLUSION………………………………………….…………………………….18

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WEBLIOGRAPHY…..…….…………………………….20

INTRODUCTION


Classical LiberalismThe heart of liberalism is the absence of coercion by others; consequently, the liberal state's

commitment to protecting liberty is, essentially, the job of ensuring that citizens do not coerce

each other without compelling justification.

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which

primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of

the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and

urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States1.

It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property

rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that

had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke,

Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological

understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which

argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual

freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern

form of neo-classical liberalism.

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century

liberalism from the newer social liberalism.2 The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes

used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and

libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of individual

freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.

Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke's Second Treatise of

Government and "A Letter Concerning Toleration", which had been written as a defence of the

Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for

Britain's new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the

American Revolution. However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke's writings or

1 M. O. Dickerson et al., An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach (2009) p. 1292 What Is Classical Liberalism?" is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as all liberalism before the 20th Century.


Classical Liberalismscarcely mentioned, and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. There is little

mention, for example, of constitutionalism, the separation of powers, and limited government.

James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke's writing: individualism, consent,

the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property, and

religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned

individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the

community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given

consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above.

This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.3

As a trustee, Government was expected to serve the interests of the people, not the rulers, and

rulers were expected to follow the laws enacted by legislatures. Locke also held that the main

purpose of men uniting into commonwealths and governments was for the preservation of their

property. Despite the ambiguity of Locke's definition of property, which limited property to "as

much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of", this principle

held great appeal to individuals possessed of great wealth.

Locke held that the individual had the right to follow his own religious beliefs and that the state

should not impose a religion against Dissenters. But there were limitations. No tolerance should

be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing

allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.4

3 Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Routledge, 2010, ISBN 978-0-415-56789-34 George Miller. On Fairness and Efficiency. The Policy Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1-86134-221-8 p.344


Classical Liberalism.OBJECTIVES

1. To have a detailed study of the concept of Classical Liberalism

2. To analyze the phases in which the concept of Classical Liberalism evolved, especially

during the Age of Enlightenment.

3. To discuss the scope of John Locke’s works.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research adopted for the project is the analytical and descriptive method.

The texts that were used for the project include articles, research papers and news given in

various websites as well as online journals

JOHN LOCKE AND THE AGE OF

ENLIGHTENMENTHIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY


Puritan-born John Locke trained at Oxford to become a physician. History, however, recalls him

as a political theorist, responsible for such works as A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Two

Treatises of Civil Government (1690), Some Considerations of the Consequences of the

Lowering of Interest, Raising the Value of Money (1692), and A Vindication of the

Reasonableness of Christianity (1695).5

His remembrance of Cromwell's dictatorship and his father's participation in the Civil War led

him to a great respect for the authority of law. Which laws should be observed, however, posed a

question for this intellect. His first great foundational contribution to classical liberalism is his

exploration of rights theory. Searching for the basis and importance of rights led him to an

exposition of natural law. Individual rights, infused with divine origin, gain a priori significance;

laws then can be organized into a hierarchy of sorts. For example, any state law in opposition to

the natural law that recognizes individual rights should not be obeyed. Conversely, the Christian

nature of these rights denies persons absolute autonomy, as Locke demonstrates in The Second

Treatise6:

But though this be a State of Liberty, yet it is not a State of License, though Man in that State

have an uncontroleable [sic] Liberty, to dispose of his Person or Possessions, yet he has not

Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler

use, than its bare Preservation calls for it.

Locke's second contribution is his view of humanity. Beginning his political analysis in the

theoretical state of nature, Locke proposes that people coexisted in relative peace. Acquiring

property by mixing labor with resources, they found few obstacles save the inconvenience of

being their own judges in cases ideally wanting impartiality. This implies that humanity is

generally good and capable of coexistence in liberty, an assertion opposing Thomas Hobbes'

earlier view and later opinions as well that hold humans are fallen and unable to achieve

harmony or peace. Thirdly, Locke provides the principle that political sovereignty comes only

5 L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, in Hobhouse: Liberalism and Other Writings, James Meadowcroft, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 978-0-521-43726-46 William J. Novak, ["The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America'"], Law and History Review 24, no. 1 (2006).


Classical Liberalismfrom the consent of the governed.7 Following this point to its conclusion, Locke admits that a

government's breach of the contract between the state and the citizens (in which they agree to be

under its authority) gives the people the right of revolution.

Perhaps most importantly, Locke perceives personal liberty as dependent upon private property.

This property must be secure under the rule of law, else those without could manipulate a system

to acquire from those who possessed. His definition of property hinges on the addition of

personal labor, thus making ownership an intimate act of creation. He extends this definition to

include religious beliefs, political ideas, and, as previously mentioned, one's self to an almost

absolute degree.

Locke's contributions truly fathered a political philosophy that would spread and evolve for

centuries. His descendants affirmed his justifications for inalienable rights and yet struggled with

the unresolved tensions between divine natural law and the fallible humanity that must interpret

it.

The Scottish Enlightenment (1714-1817)

One decade after the death of John Locke, Bernard Mandeville ushered in the era of the Scottish

Enlightenment with his 1714 publication of Enquiry Into The Origin of Moral Virtue, or The

Fable of the Bees. Mandeville's rhyme, by using an extended analogy between humanity and

bees, asserts that all individuals act on their self-interest.8 Its denial of conventional morality as

primary personal motivation for action and its slogan "private vices, publick virtues" made it a

very controversial publication. Its wide publicity, however, set the stage for Adam Smith, Adam

Ferguson, David Hume, and Henry Homes (Lord Kames) to form a classical liberal movement.

The Scottish Enlightenment offered a moral philosophy, or at least methodology, and an

economic answer to the mercantilism which gripped Europe. The works and thoughts of its

largest figure Adam Smith serve as a representative of both of these facets.

Although his name is largely associated with economics, Smith was the Chair of Moral

Philosophy at the University of Glasgow. His 1759 work The Theory of Moral Sentiments

7 Gray, John. Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995 ISBN 0-8166-2800-98 Hamowy, Ronald, ed. (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.


Classical Liberalismexplores the origins of moral approval or disapproval in the effort to judge what is necessary for

orderly social existence9. He admits that individuals are necessarily pulled toward interaction by

interest in others and desire for their approval, yet they also care deeply about themselves.

Smith makes no clear division between his moral studies and his economic beliefs, instead

allowing one to fuel the other. He recognizes that self-interest motivates all individuals, yet he

sees a natural manner in which this could serve everyone's needs. He explains this in An Inquiry

into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776):

Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me what I want, and

you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner

that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need

of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our

dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest10.

In the atmosphere of free domestic and international trade, Smith argues, a division of labor

leads to prosperity. He focuses on describing this division and the market processes that allow

and enhance it. While doing so he discredits the ideas of mercantilism that bewitched Europe,

such as the belief that hoarding specie made a nation wealthy. In critiquing this widely held

perspective, Smith joined the French Physiocrats (to one of whom, Francois Quesnay, he

dedicated Wealth of Nations). He also articulates the theory of absolute advantage, stating that

the country with the lowest production costs for a given product will produce that good; the

stepson of the Scottish Enlightenment, David Ricardo, would later alter and refine this point. His

On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation of 1817 marks the end of this movement.

Smith also produced Essays on Philosophical Subjects in 1795. By drawing on historical

examples and observable subjects, Smith and his colleagues promoted an empirical methodology

for studying human behavior. They also recognized that the characteristics of such behavior

existed without human knowledge. Smith's famous "Invisible Hand" description of the market

refers to such patterns' lack of human orchestration. Their united attack on mercantilism links the

9 Richardson, James L. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001 ISBN 1-55587-939-X10 Turner, Michael J. British Politics in an Age of Reform. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press, 1999 ISBN 0-7190-5186-X, 9780719051869


Classical Liberalismmembers of the Scottish Enlightenment with a concurrent movement across the English

Channel.11

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND

PROCEDURAL RIGHTS11 http://www.la.fnst-freiheit.org/webcom/show_page.php/_c-1032/_nr-5/i.html



INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

The Bill of Rights proclaims that individuals have "rights." But what does it mean to have a

right? Are some rights fundamentally different from others? In the classical liberal tradition,

rights have several characteristics, including the following:

Rights Are Relational

Rights pertain to the moral responsibilities that people have to one another. In particular, they

refer to a zone of sovereignty within which individuals are entitled to make choices without

interference by others. In this way, rights serve as moral side-constraints on the actions of other

people. In a world consisting of only one individual, or in which people never interacted, rights

would not exist in the sense that there would be no one to claim a right against and no one who

could interfere with the exercise of any individual's rights. Rights exist because people do

interact in pursuit of their own interests. Rights are also relational in another sense: They limit

the morally permissible actions government may take to interfere with the lives of individuals

who are governed.

Rights Imply Obligations

Rights sanction morally allowable actions. In the process, they create obligations for other

people to refrain from preventing those actions. To say that "Joe has the right to do X" implies all

other people have an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X. For example, to say "Joe has

a right to build a swing set in his backyard" implies that other people are obliged not to interfere

with Joe's construction of the swing set.

Fundamental Rights Imply Negative Obligations

Joe's right to build a swing set obligates others to stay out of the way. It does not obligate others

to help Joe — by furnishing labor, materials, etc. So, Joes' right creates negative obligations for

others, not positive ones. All fundamental rights imply negative obligations in this way.


Classical LiberalismFor example, the right to free speech implies a (negative) obligation on the part of others not to

interfere with your speaking. It does not create the (positive) obligation to provide you with a

platform, a microphone and an audience. The right to freedom of the press implies a (negative)

obligation for others not to interfere with your publishing. It does not create the (positive)

obligation to provide you with newsprint, ink and a printing press. The right to freedom of

assembly creates the (negative) obligation for others not to interfere with your association with

others. It does not create the (positive) obligation to furnish you with an assembly hall.

From primary rights (e.g., the rights to life, liberty and property) flow derivative

rights

These are new obligations that arise as people exercise their primary rights. Virtually all rights

created through trade, exchange or contract are derivative. For instance, Joe owns a motorcycle

and agrees to let Tom rent it for a period of time. Joe has a right to expect to get his motorcycle

back along with the agreed upon rental fee. Joe's rights entail positive obligations on the part of

Tom.

Rights are Compossible

Can rights conflict? In the classical liberal conception, a conflict of rights implies a

contradiction. Consider two claims:

1. Joe has the right to do X.

2. Tom has the right to interfere with Joe's doing X.

The first sentence implies that Tom has an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X, whereas

the second sentence implies that he has no such obligation. Hence, there is a contradiction.

In order to be logically consistent, therefore, rights cannot conflict; which is to say, they must be

compossible. Compossiblility means that each person's rights are compatible with everyone else

having the same rights. This is the feature behind the adage "Your right to act ends at my nose,"

and vice versa. Take the claim that each person has a right to liberty. Compossibility implies that

when any one person is exercising her liberty she is not violating other peoples' right to liberty.


Classical LiberalismThis does not mean that people cannot compete to achieve mutually exclusive goals. It does

mean that the competition must be in the context of rights. Put differently, there may be conflicts

among people (e.g., they may be pursuing conflicting goals) but there cannot be conflicts of

rights. Also, the statement that rights are compossible does not imply that there cannot be

arguments and disputes about what those rights are (which is why we have courts of law). But

the presumption of a legal hearing is that even though the disputants may disagree, there are

objective, non-contradictory rights for the court to discover.

Fundamental Rights are Inalienable

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that basic rights are inalienable.

This means they cannot be alienated from the individual who holds the rights. They cannot be

given away or taken away. They cannot be bought, sold or traded. They can be violated,

however.

Joe can give away his swing set or sell it or trade it for some other asset. Joe can also buy, sell,

trade or donate other pieces of property. But he cannot give away, sell or trade away his right to

property as such. Individuals, through consent or contract, may limit their liberty to take specific

acts (e.g., under the terms of a contract); but they may not give up their right to liberty as such.

Fundamental Rights Do Not Come from Government

Not only do rights not get their legitimacy from government, but — as the Declaration of

Independence so eloquently states — it's the other way around. Government gets its legitimacy

from the existence of rights. In the view of Locke, Jefferson and others, rational, moral people

form governments for the express purpose of protecting rights. In the Second Treatise on

Government, Locke argued that legitimate governments are, in fact, instituted to facilitate the

more effective protection or enforcement of these rights, and may not abrogate an individual's

natural rights. In natural rights theories, legitimate governments are created by consent, but

fundamental rights are not grounded in consent.

Substantive Rights vs. Procedural Rights

Some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "substantive" rights. Others are


Classical Liberalism"procedural." The founding fathers were clearly very concerned with both. The distinction is as

follows. Legitimate governments are created to protect substantive rights. But in carrying out this

task, the government is required to adhere to certain procedures, and these requirements create

procedural rights. For example, the Constitution specifies that certain government officials must

be elected. This implies that citizens have a (procedural) right to vote.

Furthermore, in order to protect rights and to adjudicate disputes about rights, the government

must exercise certain police powers. In our system, certain procedural safeguards were built into

the Constitution specifying how the government must act in exercising these powers. For

instance, the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant before arresting a person or

seizing his property. In addition, for serious crimes it requires the government to provide the

accused with a speedy, public trial before an impartial jury, the ability to confront witnesses and

to compel testimony. All these rights are procedural rights.

PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

As noted, the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the rights that flow from all the rules of

evidence that courts enforce — these are examples of procedural rights. Procedural rights have at

least four characteristics of interest:

They are less fundamental than substantive rights. Indeed, the reason for establishing procedural

rights is to protect substantive rights.

They are conventional. Whether the legislature has one house or two, whether we vote once a

year or once every six months, whether we have three branches of government or four or five —

all these are decisions to be made. And one decision is not necessarily superior to any other.

Despite the fact that these rights are conventional, many of them are nonetheless constitutional.

The Founders did not want them to be easily changed.

They imply positive obligations. Unlike fundamental substantive rights (which imply only

negative obligations), procedural rights imply positive obligations. For example, the right to vote

obligates others (government officials) to provide a polling booth, set aside a day for voting,


Classical Liberalismprint up ballots, etc. The right to a trial by jury obligates others (government officials) to

empanel jurors, provide a judge, make a court house available, etc.

They are the result of a balancing of interests. Because procedural rights create positive

obligations, arguably, they cannot be secured without the exercise of force or the threat of force.

Governments are thus empowered to make people do things which they might otherwise not do

in order to secure such rights (including, for example, collecting taxes from unwilling taxpayers).

For this reason, the securing of procedural rights requires a delicate balancing between the value

of the substantive rights they are designed to protect and the danger of violating these rights in

the very act of attempting to protect them.

Substantive Rights versus Police Powers of the State

In order to prevent crime, catch and punish criminals, settle disputes and carry out other duties

necessary to protect rights, every government will necessarily exercise police powers — powers

that are generally denied to ordinary citizens. Among the questions these powers raise, here are

three important ones:

If one individual violates another's rights (say, by committing a crime) does the violator forfeit

his rights to life, liberty, etc.?

If the government compels testimony, subpoenas records, secures property, etc., from people

who are subsequently shown to be completely innocent of any crime, is government violating the

rights of the innocent?

If the answer to the preceding question is "not always," where is the boundary to be drawn

beyond which the legitimate exercise of police powers becomes a violation of individual rights?

In the classical liberal world, people are free to pursue their own interests so long as they do not

violate the rights of others. They are free to trade with others or not to trade. They are free to

associate with others or not to associate. Since fundamental, substantive rights create negative

obligations, one respects another's rights by not interfering with the exercise of those rights.

Interference generally consists of force, the threat of force or fraud (which is interpreted to be an

indirect form of force). The classical liberal world, therefore, is a peaceful world. All interactions


Classical Liberalismare voluntary. A world in which all rights are respected is a world without force or fraud.

A potential problem arises when government exercises its police powers in defense

of rights

A classical liberal citizen clearly has the right not to be seized or searched at random. But

suppose a government official suspects the citizen is a thief and that he harbors contraband.

Suppose also, that after a search, seizure and trial, the citizen is proved to be guilty. How can we

describe these government acts using the language of rights?

Under certain circumstances rights are defeasable. That is, they are justifiably set aside. For

instance, people who are imprisoned for committing crimes (i.e., violating the rights of others)

have not lost their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but in order to

punish them for the crimes they committed, their rights are (temporarily) set aside.

A person need not have done wrong, however, to have his or her rights set aside. For instance,

the same reasoning applies to the search and seizure of a person who is later shown to be

innocent. If the search was reasonable and well-founded, it does not count as a violation of the

innocent person's rights. Instead, those rights are suspended or ignored in pursuit of a larger

objective (defending everyone else's rights).

Clearly, a lot hinges on defining what is "reasonable." Defined too broadly, the police powers of

the state threaten every substantive right of every citizen. To ensure that these powers are

narrowly circumscribed, procedural rights are established and enshrined in the Constitution.

These procedural rights are important not only to drug dealers and mafia capos (who use them to

maximum advantage). They are important to every citizen in the exercise of every right.

Rights versus Needs

To appreciate the classical liberal concept of individual rights, it is as important to understand

what is being rejected as it is to understand what is being asserted. To say that individuals have

the right to pursue their own happiness implies that they are not obliged to pursue the happiness

of others. Put differently, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness implies that people


Classical Liberalismare not obligated to serve the needs, concerns, wishes and wants of others. This doesn't mean that

everyone has to be selfish. It does imply that everyone has a right to be selfish.

In the classical liberal world, need is not a claim. That is, the needs, wishes, wants, feelings and

desires of others are not a claim against your mind, body or property. At the time the Declaration

of Independence was written, this meant that the American colonists had the right to pursue their

own interests, independent of the needs of King George and the British Empire. In time, the

concept was broadened — affirming each individual's right to pursue his or her own interest,

despite the existence of unmet needs somewhere on the planet or even next door.

The idea that need is not a claim applies to procedural rights as well as substantive rights. Tom

may feel safer if all suspicious-looking people are routinely seized and searched. But in the

world of classical liberalism, Tom's need to feel safe is not a justification for initiating force

against all suspicious-looking people.

CONCLUSION


Classical LiberalismPrior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United

States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of

Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist

Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of

government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical

liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.12

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements

of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the

case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only

had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John

Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from

government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them.

The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role

of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make

any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties13.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between

19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties

and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any

fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages

they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the

economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century

liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal

support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant 20th

12 Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, New York: Aspen Law & Business, 1998.13 Hugo M. Mialon and Paul H. Rubin, "An Economic Analysis of the Conflict Between the Patriot Act and Civil Liberty," NCPA's Debate Central Web site, online at http://www.debate-central.org/topics /2005/LINKS/ economic.html


Classical Liberalismcentury ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had

far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.14

BIBLIOGRAPHY& WEBLIOGRAPHY

14 John C. Goodman, "An Economic Theory of the Evolution of Common Law," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 7, 1978, page 393.


Classical Liberalism1. M. O. Dickerson et al., An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual

Approach (2009) p. 129

2. Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Routledge, 2010, ISBN 978-

0-415-56789-3

3. George Miller. On Fairness and Efficiency. The Policy Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1-86134-

221-8 p.344

4. L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, in Hobhouse: Liberalism and Other Writings, James

Meadowcroft, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 978-0-521-43726-4

5. William J. Novak, ["The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A

Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of

Liberal America'"], Law and History Review 24, no. 1 (2006).

6. Gray, John. Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995 ISBN 0-8166-

2800-9

7. Hamowy, Ronald, ed. (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications, Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151.

OCLC 750831024.

8. Richardson, James L. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001 ISBN 1-55587-939-X


Classical Liberalism

Documents

Transcript of Classical Liberalism