Neoclassical liberalism

From Bharatpedia, an open encyclopedia
Information red.svg
Scan the QR code to donate via UPI
Dear reader, We need your support to keep the flame of knowledge burning bright! Our hosting server bill is due on June 1st, and without your help, Bharatpedia faces the risk of shutdown. We've come a long way together in exploring and celebrating our rich heritage. Now, let's unite to ensure Bharatpedia continues to be a beacon of knowledge for generations to come. Every contribution, big or small, makes a difference. Together, let's preserve and share the essence of Bharat.

Thank you for being part of the Bharatpedia family!
Please scan the QR code on the right click here to donate.

0%

   

transparency: ₹0 raised out of ₹100,000 (0 supporter)



Not to be confused with New liberalism (ideology).

Template:Liberalism sidebar

Neoclassical liberalism (alternatively spelled neo-classical liberalism[1][lower-alpha 1] and also known as new classical liberalism[lower-alpha 2]) is a tradition of the liberal thought that, with the premises of John Locke's classical liberalism applied to industrialized societies, opposes the welfare state and left-leaning social liberalism.[2](p596) In the United States, the Arizona School liberalism (also known as bleeding-heart libertarianism) co-opted the term neoclassical liberal to promote some ideas of Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, such as the school voucher system and the negative income tax.[3][4](pp571–572)

History[edit]

19th century neoclassical liberalism (c. 1840 – c. 1900)[edit]

Herbert Spencer (left) and William Graham Sumner (right), who have greatly influenced the development of neoclassical liberalism.

In the late 19th century, the establishment of social liberalism advocated by Thomas Hill Green led to an internal dispute within the liberal movement: the social liberals[lower-alpha 3] (welfare liberals) were favorable to a more regulatory state and social justice, while a faction of liberals continued to support laissez-faire economics. Despite industrialization[lower-alpha 4], neoclassical liberals argued that their interpretation of the liberalism envisioned by the British philosopher John Locke in his Second Treatise of Goverment of 1690 continued to be the best guide for handling social and economic issues.[2](pp596–597) British sociologist Herbert Spencer proposed the principle of "survival of the fittest". In his book The Proper Sphere of Government, Spencer argued that individuals have only two natural rights: the right to life and the right to property. Like the American William Graham Sumner, Spencer believed that state intervention in economic affairs (which he called officialism) would lead to decadence and/or parasitism to the detriment of the employed; he therefore opposed to trade regulation, public education, state-sponsored religions, social security, and state-owned transportation systems.[2](p597)

American social scientist William G. Sumner contended that the proper role of government was the protection of "the property of men and the honor of women", government was to be a rationalistic response of individuals to defend property rights and the purpose was to be merely contractualistic.[2](p600)

Mid-20th century right-libertarianism (1943-1980s)[edit]

Austrian-British economist F. A. Hayek (1899–1992)

Neoclassical liberalism re-emerged mainly in the post-World War II era, when modern liberalism was the main form of liberalism and Keynesianism and social democracy were the dominant ideologies in the Western world.[5](p43) After Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal (1933-1944), which contributed to the expansion of the welfare state in the United States, economists such as Friedrich von Hayek (1899–1992) and Milton Friedman (1912–2006) began to reintroduce neoclassical liberal policies as alternatives to Roosevelt's social liberalism.[6](p556)

The U.S. libertarian movement of the late 20th century is seen as a successor to neoclassical liberalism.[2](p603) According to Ellen Grigsby, arguments of contemporary neoclassical liberal thought are present in the philosophy of Robert Nozick and in the party platform of the American Libertarian Party.[2](p603)

21st-century neoclassical liberals[edit]

Contemporary neoclassical liberals have tried to expunge the social Darwinistic implications of neoclassical liberal theory, the legacy of Spencer and Sumner, although they continue to advocate on behalf of the benefits of minimal state intervention and liberty for self-interested individuals.[2](p603)

Usage by Bleeding-Heart Libertarians[edit]

Logo used by the official Bleeding-Heart Libertarians blog.

Neoclassical liberalism, as understood by the Arizona School liberalism[7][8][7][9] or bleeding-heart libertarians,[10] is a libertarian political philosophy[9] that focuses on the compatibility of support for civil liberties and free markets on the one hand and a concern for social justice and the well-being of the worst-off on the other. Adherents of neoclassical liberalism broadly hold that an agenda focused upon individual liberty will be of most benefit to the economically weak and socially disadvantaged.[11]

The first known use of the term "Arizona School" was by Andrew Sabl, introducing David Schmidtz at a UCLA Department Colloquium in 2012. Upon being pressed to define "Arizona School" Sabl said the school is broadly libertarian but that its most distinguishing characteristic is that it produces political philosophy that aims to be observation-based and empirically accountable. The first recorded use of the term bleeding-heart libertarian seems to have been in a 1996 essay by Roderick T. Long.[12] It was subsequently used in a blog post by Stefan Sharkansky[13] and later picked up and elaborated on by Arnold Kling in an article for TCS Daily.[14] Since then, the term has been used sporadically by a number of libertarian writers including Anthony Gregory[15] and Bryan Caplan.[16]

In March 2011, a group of academic philosophers, political theorists and economists created the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog.[10] Regular contributors to the blog included Fernando Tesón, Gary Chartier, Jason Brennan, Matt Zwolinski, Roderick T. Long, and Steven Horwitz.

Criticism[edit]

Critics of the bleeding-heart libertarian movement include economist David D. Friedman, for whom bleeding-heart libertarians "insist that social justice ought to be part of libertarianism but are unwilling to tell us what it means."[17]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ↑ British researcher Alan James Mayne use the spelling with hyphenation.
  2. ↑ Political scientist Ellen Grigsby also uses «“new” classical liberals» to refer to the grouping
  3. ↑ At the time, social liberals were called "new liberals" in the U.K.
  4. ↑ British philosopher John Locke wrote his ideas prior to the First Industrial Revolution (c. 1760 – c. 1840)
  1. ↑ Mayne, Alan James (1999). From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigms. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publisher. pp. 124–125. ISBN 0-275-96151-6. LCCN 98-31077.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Grigsby, Ellen (2011). "Neoclassical Liberals". In Ishiyama, John T.; Breuning, Marijke (eds.). 21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1483305462.
  3. ↑ Kling, Arnold (29 September 2003). "Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism". Archived from the original on 19 May 2012.
  4. ↑ Maloberti, Nicolás (2015). "Rawls and Bleeding Heart Libertarianism: How Well Do They Mix?" (PDF). The Independent Review. Independent Institute. 19 (4).
  5. ↑ Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power. Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1555879396.
  6. ↑ Ball, Terence; Dagger, Richard; O'Neill, Daniel I. (2019) [1990]. Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1000011906.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Brennan, Jason (2012). Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-0199933914.
  8. ↑ Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi, "A Bleeding Heart History of Libertarianism", April 2, 2012, Cato Unbound.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Neoclassical liberal philosophers such as David Schmidtz, Jerry Gaus, John Tomasi, Kevin Vallier, Matt Zwolinski and Jason Brennan all have a connection to the University of Arizona (cf. "On the ethics of voting" Archived 2018-09-07 at the Wayback Machine, 3:AM Magazine, January 14, 2013).
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Zwolinski, Matt (2011-03-03). "Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism". Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog.
  11. ↑ "About Us". Bleeding Heart Libertarians. 16 May 2011.
  12. ↑ Long, Roderick (1996). "Beyond the Boss". Retrieved 2012-09-20.
  13. ↑ Sharkansky, Stefan (2002-06-01). "My Blog and Welcome to It". Retrieved 2012-06-16.
  14. ↑ Kling, Arnold (2003-09-29). "Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism". Archived from the original on 2012-05-19. Retrieved 2012-06-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  15. ↑ Gregory, Anthony. "Don't Privatize Plunder". LewRockwell.com. Archived from the original on 2015-06-18. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  16. ↑ Caplan, Bryan. "Who's More Irresponsible?". EconLog. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  17. ↑ Henderson, David (2012-04-28). "David Friedman on Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism". EconLog. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

References[edit]

  • Jeffrey Edward Green (2016), The Shadow of Unfairness: A Plebeian Theory of Liberal Democracy, Oxford University Press.
  • Jason Brennan, Bas van der Vossen, David Schmidtz, eds. (2017), The Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism, Routledge: "Libertarianism and the Welfare State" by Matt Zwolinski.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Template:Liberalism Template:Libertarianism

Retrieved from "https://en.bharatpedia.org/index.php?title=Neoclassical_liberalism&oldid=427409"