Classical Liberalism vs. Modern-day Progressive “Liberalism”– Part II

In my last post I described the idea of Classical Liberalism and the implication that a Realist metaphysic has on it systematically. The two combine to form a completely consistent set of principles from the ground up. We discovered that this belief system states:

1. Man is a rational individual whose end is happiness.
2. Man has certain natural rights which are his tools to fulfill his end
3. All men are inherently “equal” in that they possess these rights (forgot to mention this important part in my last post)
4. Government is required only to protect these natural rights so that man can fulfill his end

It was as simple as that. Now I want to take a look at modern-day liberal/progressive thought and see if we can back out the metaphysic upon which it is grounded. First, we must define what liberal/progressive ideas of government are. They believe that:

Government should provide for the needs of the people including:
1. Retirement
2. Education
3. Healthcare
4. Employment
5. Housing

Unlike rights, however, NEEDS are not completely commissary. This means that to provide the needs to some, rights must be taken away or obligations must be imposed on others (especially property). Therefore it does not seem that all the natural rights described by our Founders are actually necessary. I don’t think that liberal/progressives would jettison all “rights”, but certain ones, especially the right to property, must be cast by the wayside for SOME so that OTHERS can have their needs met by government. So, it seems that only those rights which do not prevent the government from providing for the needs of the people are allowed.

The implication is that man, therefore, does not have all of the tools required to achieve his end, happiness. He is reliant upon the government (i.e. others) to provide for his needs so that he can achieve happiness. He therefore cannot be said to be an individual.

Likewise, since his needs must be met by the government, he clearly cannot understand what would bring him happiness or how to achieve it on his own. Therefore man cannot be said to be entirely rational. He may be capable of some limited self contemplation (or loathing) and can recognize that he has needs. However, he clearly does not have the intelligence or reason to be able to deduce what course of actions will help him achieve happiness.

And what of man’s end? I would say that liberal/progressives believe that man’s end is still happiness. However, since man is not an individual, his end cannot be said to be his individual happiness. Rather, his end would be the sum happiness of society. His actions should be such to maximize the happiness of all rather than his own happiness.

So, if we make our list as before, we have determined:
1. Man is not an individual, nor is he a completely rational being. His end is the sum of all happiness in society.
2. Man has only certain rights which do not prevent the Government from providing for his needs.
3. Government is required to protect some rights, but more importantly to provide for man’s needs and ensure the sum happiness of society.

Do you see, now, how inconsistent this set of beliefs is?? If you look at the example from Classical Liberalism, the beliefs flow easily from the top down. Man is described, he has innate tools to fulfill his end and government is there to simply allow him to be himself and achieve his end.

The example from modern liberal/progressive thought is completely catawampus. It describes man, but his “rights” or innate abilities are described by the needs of government (they are whatever doesn’t get in government’s way). Yet these “tools” or “rights” then must describe government? In reality, the order should be switched and government should be described first before man’s rights. This means that the government does not serve man’s rights, but rather man’s rights serve the government. He has therefore lost his individual sovereignty.

The loss of this individual sovereignty is the only consistent piece in this system, since it is also described in point #1 that man is no longer an individual! But this point has serious implications. If man is not an individual sovereign, what use do we have of the Social Contract (i.e. Constitution) which is set up to protect this individual sovereign from the majority? None! The implication, then, is that the Governmental system necessarily changes from a Democratic Republic to a true Democracy!

But this is not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, in terms of consistency, is that if man is not an entirely rational being and cannot decide what is in his best interest, and government is run by men, how is it that government can truly provide for man’s best interest, provide for his needs, and allow him to achieve happiness!? Who could run such a government under this system? The only way to reconcile this matter is to say that there are certain “enlightened” persons who should make such decisions for those “unenlightened” persons. In other words, there must be a ruling class (remember Divine Right?)! If so, then there must be TWO descriptions of man, not just one (one is a rational being, one is not). And if there are TWO descriptions of man, then it cannot be said that “all men are created equal”. Clearly both statements cannot be true at the same time!

Do you see the problems we’re running into here? By taking the beliefs of liberal/progressives and attempting to back out what they mean fundamentally, we find nothing but inconsistencies and errors. I would wager that half of liberal/progressives would recoil in horror at the implications that their political thoughts make! Most would say, “Certainly men are created equal” but at the same time will say, “Government should provide for the needs of the people”. We’ve seen that these two things are not commissary.

Likewise, a liberal/progressive would say, “Certainly we have rights” but at the same time will say “Government should provide for the needs of the people”. But to do so, the government must take away at least some rights!

Such are the dangers of liberal/progressive thought. What you have is anything but Liberalism. Instead what you have is a utilitarian, collective populism; a system that is completely antithetical to the principles on which this nation was founded.

Classical Liberalism vs. Modern-day Progressive “Liberalism”– Part I

All legitimate things are built on solid foundations.

I’ve been giving some thought to the consistency of far left, progressive positions and, I must say, I am completely befuddled. I’m an engineer and, being such, I love consistency. But this consistency must always exist from up and down, not just left and right. To say that a position or set of actions is consistent only at the levels that we usually “see” them really doesn’t mean much at all!

For example, if I am designing a processing unit, most of the decisions I make on the size of the equipment, flowrates, etc. are values that are pretty much already known. They are “high level” calculations that I am doing. They obviously must be entirely consistent with each other. However, all of these “high level” calculations are rooted on a solid, consistent (thermodynamically and kinetically speaking) foundation. Without such a foundation, these “high level” calculations and actions would be meaningless, even if they are consistent! If, for example, the thermo I am using is wrong, everything else that I do will be wrong as well, systematically!

We don’t really think of it often, but the same applies to political thought. I’ve recently been introduced to the idea of “Classical Liberalism”, that is, the Liberalism of our Founding Fathers. I thought I understood what our Founders meant and believed in, but I was often confused by the term “liberal” which was both applied to them as well as to progressives of today. The two are quite different, hence the confusion!

But the more I read about our Founding Fathers and their “Classical Liberalism”, the more I like it. Why? Because it is grounded on a solid foundation.

Let me explain. But to do so, we’re going to need to take a step back and look at the metaphysics which drives Classical Liberal thought. Before we can talk about the “high level” ideas such as ethics, morality, government, etc., we have to understand from where we are coming.

Most Classical Liberals, our founders included, were and are of the Realist or “Classical Realist” camp, myself, Aristotle, and Aquinas included. Realism as a metaphysic has a lot of consequences, but for now, we’re concerned about the ones that influence man and politics.

Classical Realism states that man is
1) A Rational Animal (Existence)
2) Independent of other men and things(Independence)

What does this mean? Well, it means that man is rational. He is intelligent, can think, reason, self-contemplate, etc. He’s an animal, true. He needs food, to reproduce, etc., but he’s more than an animal as he is also rational. He is also independent of other men; he’s an individual. Now, don’t get confused here. This does NOT mean that he is anti-social. This is far from true. What it means is that he is a rational animal and has all of the attributes of his existence regardless of anything else.

A standard example of this system is the moon. It exists as a large, spherical object with a white glow. It is independent in that it remains a large, spherical object regardless of what you or I might say about it. Got it?

Good. Those are some of the questions of essence/existence which realism answers. The next question for metaphysics to answer is, what is man’s end? What is his purpose? The answer to this question, going all the way back to Aristotle, is happiness.

Happiness is man’s end. If you think about all the things that you or I might want-- to be loved, to have a supportive family, to have wealth, to have fun and enjoy life--none of these are ends. They are all means. If, for example, I said “I would like to have fun”, this does not answer the next question, “Why?”. The answer to the next question of course, is “to be happy.” The same works for wealth, I want to be well-off so that I can be happy.

But if I said, “I want to be happy”…there is no answer to the “Why?”. This is the logic behind happiness as mans end; it is the thing which he desires that is not a means itself.

So, now that we’ve waded through that mumbo-jumbo, we’re left with this. Man is a rational individual whose end is happiness. Achieving happiness is the fulfillment of his being. This is the metaphysic upon which the Liberalism of our Founding Fathers was based.

So, where do we go now? Well, Classical Liberalism states that man has certain natural or inalienable rights (remember the Declaration of Independence?). He has these rights as an individual and he has these rights “naturally” as they are required for him to fulfill his end, happiness.

All of these natural rights are “negative rights”. This means that they place no obligation on either the individual or others. For example, man has a right to “freedom of speech”. This means he has the right either to say something or to say nothing. It places no obligation on others except that they should not prevent him from exercising his right. It says that they are not required to do something; rather they are required to do nothing.

The same is true for freedom of association, freedom of person (liberty), and especially true for the right to property.

So, now we have a man who is an individual, who is rational, and who possesses certain natural rights so that he may pursue happiness. We’re at the point now where we can begin discussing the “higher levels”, such as ethics or, in our case, political thought.

The next question to be asked is what sort of social or political construct is required? Based on our assessment of man, he already has all the tools necessary to pursue happiness. These are contained in his natural rights and in his rationality. A political construct, therefore, is only required to protect these rights. This is exactly what our founders thought when they drew up our Constitution! This idea is from where the idea of a “limited government” takes root.

Without a government, of course, man would have no protection of his rights. A king or sovereign from another nation could easily come in and take these rights vis-à-vis force. So obviously, some collective defense is required to protect man from this external threat. This is where the government’s military power comes to play.

Man’s rights are threatened internally as well. For example, if one man steals from another, the thief deprives this man of his right to property. Likewise, if one man murders another, he deprives him of his right to life. The list can go on. So again, some political construct is needed to protect man’s rights from internal threats. This is why the government is granted some level of police and legislative (with strict limitations).

But even in a democratic society which grants protection from external threats via military power and internal threats via police and legislative power, rights can still be threatened. In a true democracy, for example, the majority could be just as tyrannical as a king and vote to take away these rights. This is the fundamental difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic (of which we are supposed to be the latter). This is where the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and the Courts come to play.

So, to summarize, our founding fathers believed:

1. Man is a rational, individual whose end is the pursuit of happiness
2. Man has inalienable rights which allow him to pursue his end, happiness
3. Government is required only to protect these rights
3a. From external threats via military power (Executive Branch)
3b. From internal threats via police power (Executive and Legislative Branches)
3c. From internal threats via a Constitution and the Rule of Law (Judicial Branch)

That is the basic construct. It is completely consistent from the bottom to the top. It lays out who we are, why we have rights, why we have a government, and why this government is limited. It states that man is intelligent and can decide what will make him happy. It provides a framework so that man can exercise his individual rights to achieve this happiness while respecting the rights of others. It says that government should do nothing more and nothing less.

In Part II, we’ll take a look at left-wing, progressive “liberals” and see if we can’t back out the metaphysics upon which their thoughts are based.