Asher Sisneros

What is classical liberalism? Although associated with laissez-faire economics and skepticism towards government-run welfare programs, that is not the historic classical liberalism of Benjamin Constant and Frederic Bastiat. True, classical liberals believe in the free-market economy, disdain central banking, wish to limit taxes and governmental regulations and advocate for peace and free trade over imperialism and tariffs, but that is not what classical liberalism is. More fundamentally, classical liberalism is an underlying outlook on the role of governments. It is a political philosophy that places supremacy on individual rights over societal, communal well-being. It is a philosophy that trusts individuals to be better at caring for themselves than a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., who does not even know their name. It is a philosophy that calls on families, communities, and churches to be the chief providers for the poor and the needy, not the federal government. It is a philosophy that wishes to limit the government’s power and influence over its citizenry, stripping it of any duty to encourage proper behavior and limiting it to one task: punishing evil, criminal behavior.

Plato spoke of an enlightened “philosopher king” who was the model citizen and perfect ruler, being a teacher of the truth who ruled selflessly and for the good of his people. And while that might be a wonderful fantasy, the classical liberal says it is nothing more than an idealized dream—the story of fairy tales—for the term “selfless, humble politician” is an oxymoron. Perhaps that makes the classical liberal more pragmatic than Plato. Whatever the case, classical liberalism is inherently skeptical of any human being that claims divine motives and divine enlightenment. Maybe philosopher kings are theoretically possible, but history tells a different story. And for every Marcus Aurelius, there is a Nero; for every just ruler, there is a tyrant.

Bastiat said it best: “It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire—learned from the teachings of antiquity—that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.“^[1] Unfortunately, human pride causes politicians to gravitate towards usurping personal liberties for the sake of growing their power and influence. Thus the classical liberal looks at philosopher kings with a skeptical eye. After all, liberty is not defended by kings; it is defended against them.

Even when tyranny comes in the form of majoritarian rule, the classical liberal still opposes it. Take the French Revolution, for example. The Ultras and the Jacobins of the revolution styled themselves as crusaders who fought for the better good of the bourgeoisie class in an effort to rebuild society. However, in the process, the rule of law was completely usurped, and common liberty was undermined. The French constitution they wrote was illegal, the King was unlawfully deposed and executed, and thousands were executed without a trial. Even radical supporters of the French Revolution like Danton were murdered by Robespierre’s madness. But in that revolution, the rule of law was not undermined in the name of tyranny. Liberty and the rule of law were undermined under the pretense of societal reconstruction and in the name of the working class. Classical liberalism wishes to protect individual liberties, even against noble ambitions. However just a cause may be, individual rights cannot be undermined in the process of attaining those goals and advancing that cause. Even under majority vote, rights cannot be trampled on.

Benjamin Constant addresses this subject in his speech “Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns.” In it, he argues that antiquity and the modern era stand at odds on how they define liberty. In ancient Greece and even Rome, people were considered free based on their ability to participate in the political system. Voting was enough to make one a member of a liberal society. However, those societies did not have liberty at all. In Athens, ostracism and execution were legal without a trial by popular consent. Perhaps that was liberty in the ancient sense but not in the modern sense. According to modern liberty, individual rights cannot be undermined, even by popular consent. Individuals can defend themselves against any accusations before the courts. That privilege is uniquely modern. In Greece, a man was considered free based on his participation in the community, and the community was sovereign. Yet in the modern West, a man is considered free if his inalienable individual rights cannot be trampled on by any force—even by majority vote.

The sovereignty of individual rights is central to classical liberalism, which says it must be protected by two extremes: the rule of the majority, and the rule of the minority. For centuries, the West has understood the importance of protecting individual rights from the tyrannical will of a monarch or aristocracy. However, the tyrannical will of the mob is just as despicable.  

In addition to restraining the power of governments and forbidding them from intruding on rights—even if the government’s goals appear to be noble—classical liberalism is the idea that governments have one purpose and one purpose alone: punish criminal behavior. In “The Law,” Bastiat says: “As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of the law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning,” for justice “is achieved only when injustice is absent.”^[2] Similarly, the Apostle Paul said governments exist to “be a terror to those who practice evil” (Romans 13:3), and that is the foundation of classical liberalism. There is no reason for governments to rebuild society, provide for people economically, or force the people to become peak moral citizens. Their sole duty is to prevent lawlessness.

There are genuine needs in the world beyond what governments can provide. Care for the needy, rehabilitation centers, hospitals, and educational systems are needed for a functioning society. However, the government is not the answer. The private sector can and will provide, as it has in the past. Let families, friends, neighbors, churches, and communities answer those needs. To answer the question of what classical liberalism is, it is the idea that the only role of government is to protect its citizenry from lawlessness. It is the idea that governments are constrained and do not have unlimited powers. It is the idea that individual liberties trump communal well-being, national security, or economic prosperity.

Summary

1. Classical liberalism is an outlook on the role of the government, not an outlook on tariffs, welfare programs, foreign policy, etc.
2. Unlike Plato, classical liberals are more pragmatic, realizing that governments gravitate towards increasing their power and intruding on the rights of their people.
3. Benjamin Constant thought individual rights could not be trampled on—by aristocracies or the mob.
4. Classical liberalism is the idea that governments only exist to punish criminal behavior and “prevent injustice from reigning,” as Frederic Bastiat says.

---

^[1] Frederic Bastiat, “The Law,” (Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing, 2011), 51-52

^[2] Bastiat, “The Law,” 29