The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism

by George H. Smith

Liberal individualism, or “classical liberalism” as it is often called, refers to a political philosophy in which liberty plays the central role. This book demonstrates a conceptual unity within the manifestations of classical liberalism by tracing the history of several interrelated and reinforcing themes. Concepts such as order, justice, rights, and freedom have imparted unity to this diverse political ideology by integrating context and meaning. However, they have also sparked conflict, as classical liberals split on a number of issues, such as legitimate exceptions to the “presumption of liberty,” the meaning of “the public good,” natural rights versus utilitarianism, the role of the state in education, and the rights of resistance and revolution. This book explores these conflicts and their implications for contemporary liberal and libertarian thought.

Genres: History, Philosophy, Politics, Political Science, Economics

231 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

George Hamilton Smith was an American author, editor, educator, and speaker, known for his writings on atheism and libertarianism.

Reviews

[Bakunin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of what classical liberalism meant to those who defended it.

Smith describes the group classical as a set of individuals with certain diverging ideas but what united them was their belief in liberty.
What divided classical liberals seems to be two different moral schools: on the one side you had the natural rights based approach (John Locke) which defined liberty as something necessary for the public good.
On the other hand you had the utilitarians (becoming ever more influential after the french revolution) which offered argued that public policy should be steered toward providing the maximum happiness for the most people. Liberty was seen as a way of providing happiness and therefore was the ultimate goal of public policy. Smith argues that this line of reasoning contains within in itself the seeds to its own destruction. If liberty has no intrinsic value, why not use other policies to make people happy?

Smith writes in a clear and accessible style which allows the reader to easily grasp the issues at hand. His thorough treatment of the issue of liberalism within the confines of political philosophy allows one to understand its origins and ultimately its decline in popularity.

I would've liked Smith to have gone more into another aspect of liberalism - namely the freedom of thought. How diverse do our thinking need to be in order for us to be free? What did Spencer, Locke, Jefferson think about such matters?

All in all a great read.

[Mars Cheung · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The gaining of a popular good, being the external conspicuous trait common to Liberal measures in earlier days(then in each case gained by a relaxation of constraints), it has happened that popular good has come to be sought by Liberals, not as an end to be indirectly gained by relaxations of restraints, but as the end to be directly gained. And seeking to gain it directly, they have used methods intrinsically opposed to those originally used"

-Herbert Spencer

Written above is a quote that eloquently states my original reason for acquiring this book. As an individual who is keenly interested in getting involved with our political system from a non-partisan angle, I felt it essential to understand the origins of the concepts and philosophies that gave rise to the American system of liberty. I wanted to understand what exactly was 'conservatism'? What does 'liberal' mean? Why are the terms used in a pejorative fashion by either side of the political divide? Did they begin as their modern incarnations? How do they relate to the idea of 'freedom'? In my research, I came across the term 'Classical Liberalism' and resolved to learn more about it, especially in regards to how it compares with both today's definition in the United States and the definition as it may still be understood in Europe.

This book did an incredible job of defining the original term. From the outset, George Smith delineated Liberalism in a meticulously detailed format. The concepts were introduced with well-defined terminology and presented to the reader many of the ideas, prepositions and arguments that constituted the two schools of thought (utilitarian ethics vs. the paramount importance of natural rights) that have competed for the dominant narrative. The author took painstaking efforts to continuously clarify abstract concepts and to explain subtle nuances in the justifications and criticisms presented in this book, so it was very easy to understand and follow. The stances of many individuals including, but not limited to, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Robert Filmer, and Herbert Spencer are extrapolated into an organized and structured form, making the information readily consumable.

I was very happy with this book and suspect that I will be pouring over it again for the rich content and details it offers. An absolute must-read for anyone looking for deeper understanding of freedom and the role of government. Highly recommended.

[Bremer]

The term “Liberalism” comes from “Liber,” the Latin root for “Liberty” and “Freedom” (Smith 9). It later became associated with qualities such as tolerance, generosity, and open-mindedness.

Classical liberalism was a humanistic outlook rather than merely a political doctrine. Classical liberals emphasized the need for freedom. Freedom was their “polar star” (Smith 2). They believed that they had the right to “use their bodies, freedom, labor, and justly acquired property” as they desired. In turn, they had to respect the same freedom for others (Smith 2).

George H. Smith wrote that classical liberals believed:

One is truly free when one can act on one’s own judgment in pursuit of one’s own goals, enter into voluntary relationships with other people, and dispose of one’s person and property as one sees fit, so long as one respects the equal freedom of other people to do the same. (7)

Classical liberals, while being guided by the idea of freedom, were not without their biases as well. To some modern critics, these biases have continued to fester within the tradition. Earlier proponents of classical liberalism narrowly defined “freedom” as being exclusive to only white male property owners. Some of these men were even slaveholders who argued for the freedom of every “person.” In later centuries these prejudices were exposed more, sometimes by other liberals, for being racist and sexist (Millard, Vézina 3.3.1-3.3.3).

As classical liberalism developed, its defenders fought for the freedom of individuals in areas such as “commerce, religion, speech, and the press” (Smith 7). Moreover, classical liberals were often opposed to “slavery, military conscription, victimless crime laws, [and] imperialism” (Smith 7) Later on, many activists defending the equal rights of women and children were inspired by classical liberal ideas (Millard, Vézina 3.3.1).

But in comparison “to the complicated networks of inherited legal ranks and privileges that tended to mark pre-liberal Europe,” classical liberalism was a bold stance to take (Millard, Vézina 3.3.1). It was a challenge to the “principle of absolute sovereignty,” regardless of whether it resided in “the king, the parliament, or the people” (Smith 10).

Some critics, such as the liberal utilitarians, argued that natural rights weren’t absolute. Sometimes it was necessary for the state to override the liberty of individuals for the public good. This justification was often invoked in times of war. Utilitarians believed in the “greatest good for the greatest number.” For philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham, the state was potentially a benevolent power, capable of promoting the greatest happiness through its laws (Smith 162).

But if liberty could be overridden in exceptional cases, why was the state justified in overriding it? What rulers were wise enough, or virtuous enough, to decide what rights should be sacrificed for the public good? (Smith 34)

Furthermore, if rights could easily be taken away in favor of some poorly defined ideal of “goodness” or “happiness,” then those in power could use that as a convenient pretext for any policy they wanted. At the same time, legislation based on the “greatest good” could end with unforeseen consequences.

How were the people to decide if their rulers were just or not? Rulers have historically professed their noble intentions. They have claimed to be for the good of the people, even while instituting chattel slavery, destroying indigenous populations, and invading other countries for natural resources.

Rulers have been corrupted by power before. Even those acting from the noblest intentions have made mistakes. And if the system itself was considered to be unjust, then the ruler was the byproduct of the system rather than its primary cause. If the ruler were removed, the same systemic issues would perpetuate themselves.

For many classical liberals, there was no reason to believe the professed intentions of those in power. The people had to judge them based on the pattern of their actions. Over time, rulers revealed their true intentions through the consequences that followed.

Joseph Priestly considered a government to be tyrannical when it had extensive control over the lives of individuals and individuals had little control over their lives. He wrote that people should be free to follow their own judgments as long as they did not violate the rights of others (Smith 39-40).

Lockean liberals believed in the value of social utility, but not at the expense of their inalienable rights. They had to guard themselves against injustice.

The state itself was seen as a “coercive institution” that used force and the threat of force to achieve its goals (Smith 71). From the perspective of the state, it not only had the moral justification to use force, but it could decide on what force was acceptable.

Furthermore, the state was considered the “legal sovereign of a territory” (Smith 81). According to George H. Smith, “‘Legal’ refers to the realm of legitimate coercion. ‘Sovereign’ refers to the ultimate judge or arbiter. ‘Territory’ refers to a geographical area” (81).

If those in power were the only ones to judge the rightness of their actions, if they determined their own legitimacy, they could potentially act in an unjust and arbitrary manner. They could avoid responsibility for their actions based on their powerful position in society.

For natural rights liberals, if a state claimed to have legitimate authority over others, it had to justify itself. Tyrannical governments were institutions that “systematically violated [the] inalienable rights” of the people (Smith 162). For liberals, these rights were the fundamental characteristics of human nature. They gave rise to the conditions required for social cooperation.

Inalienable rights existed separately from the state, not because of it. They weren’t artificially created out of its laws (Smith 162). They couldn’t be given over to anyone, not even by consent. To some liberals, the entire purpose of the state was to protect these rights (Smith 120).

For philosophers in the Lockean tradition, if the state couldn’t justify its moral legitimacy, it had to be resisted. And if it continued to enforce unjust laws, then it needed to be overthrown (Smith 124). Unjust governments stopped being respectable if they undermined their own moral authority. Then they were as good as criminal gangs or pirates. Challenging these governments at every level made them more accountable.

George H. Smith wrote:

Those in government are especially susceptible to the corruption of power, because government is an institutionalized coercion. Ultimately, the only way to check the abuse of power is through active resistance… If the abuse of power is allowed to grow unchecked until it becomes tyrannical, then no remedy will be available except a complete revolution… By resisting unjust laws before the onset of total tyranny, we may be able to reverse the growth of power, thereby avoiding tyranny–and the need for revolution. (126)

For classical liberals, the existence of the state was the “physical embodiment” of the moral argument. If the state couldn’t meet its own standards, then it was immorally exercising its power (Smith 146).

Critics have argued that no state could reasonably meet all these standards. By calling the legitimacy of the state into question, radical liberals were undermining the traditions of their institutions. Rather than adhering to the government, their attacks were leading to the abolishment of it.

The implications of these arguments were dangerous for those in power. If the state was exposed as being illegitimate, then its entire existence was threatened. For critics who claimed that even a flawed state was better than anarchy, these ideas broke down the foundation of their institutions.

Classical liberals argued that the principle behind the government was more important than its form. They believed that any government, regardless of its structure as a monarchy, democracy, and so on, should always “preserve the rights and freedom of individuals” (Smith 176).

At the same time, individuals who chose to live in voluntary association with others were responsible for their actions. Most people were not isolated from the society around them. They, in turn, affected society through their attitudes and behaviors.

For methodological individualists like Georg Simmel, society was “the name for a number of individuals, connected by interaction” (Smith 204). It was not a noun, but rather, a dynamic process that was “renewed and realized” through ongoing interactions. Older relationships were established while newer relationships emerged. These social interactions were significant for the people who engaged in them. They were “essential to [the development of] his or her identity” (Smith 206).

By the end of the 19th century, classical liberalism was declining. A new form of liberalism was coming about that justified more state intervention (Smith 213). New liberals shifted their concerns over to the social utility of their reforms. Natural rights were seen as secondary issues or dismissed entirely (Smith 214).

Noam Chomsky said in an interview with Bryan Magee that liberals, such as Homboldt and Mill, lived in a different period than those in the 21st century. They were dealing with a “post-feudal, pre-[modern] capitalist society,” unaware of the immense “divergence [in power]” that would develop later on.

Classical liberals were aware of the disparity in power between the state and the individual. And it was their task to abolish the power of the state when that state threatened their human rights.

But in later centuries, liberalism began to involve the intervention of the state in a capitalist economy. Classical liberals were influenced by figures such as Adam Smith, who argued for the free market system with the assumption that human beings were naturally sympathetic and cooperative. He wanted an “equality of outcome, not opportunity” (Chomsky). Although Smith was skeptical of the government, he did support intervention when it came to “national security, law enforcement, and infrastructure” (Millard, Vézina 3.3.1).

Reform liberals were in favor of the freedom to be left alone just like classical liberals, except they believed individuals should have the capacity for freedom or the “equal opportunity” to prosper just like those who were wealthy (Millard, Vézina 3.3.2). They wanted the government to take a more active role, such as redistributing wealth through taxation and developing more social programs for the poor (Millard, Vézina 3.3.2).

Classical liberalism “coalesced in Britain and from there penetrated into America and Europe, over the 17th and 18th centuries” but it “grew [to the height of its] influence as capitalism and the effects of the Industrial Revolution spread throughout much of Europe and North America and, eventually, beyond. These forces came together to provide colossal technological innovation, urbanization, and the creation of huge amounts of private wealth” (Millard, Vézina 3.3.1)

During the 19th century, however,

laissez-faire capitalism and industrialization created immense wealth and technological innovation, but also appalling poverty. Labourers often worked in miserable conditions for long hours and for minimal pay. They were frequently children. Urban slums abounded and were rife with prostitution, disease, and violence. Economic slumps brought little assistance from the state and could leave even hard-working and capable people in desperate straits. (Millard, Vézina 3.3.1).

These conditions led to social reforms and the strengthening of labor unions. The popularity of alternative philosophies such as socialism and anarchism arose as well. (Millard, Vézina 3.3.1).

Classical liberals were against the concentration of power, but in earlier centuries, they were focused more on the “church and state and feudal system” (Chomsky).

Philosophers such as Humboldt “had no conception of the forms that industrial capitalism would take” (Chomsky). Enlightenment figures were not around to see the concentration of corporate power and its tremendous influence on the state (Millard, Vézina 3.3.2).

According to Nicki Lisa Cole:

Capitalism today is a much different economic system than it was when it debuted in Europe in the 14th century. In fact, the system of capitalism has gone through three distinct epochs, beginning with mercantile, moving on to classical (or competitive), and then evolving into Keynesianism or state capitalism in the 20th century before it would morph once more into the global capitalism we know today.

Nevertheless, classical liberals “stressed the importance of diversity and free creation” among individuals (Chomsky). They believed that liberty was central to their lives and they resisted any institution that violated their inalienable rights.

***

Work Cited:

Chomsky, Noam. Magee, Bryan. "Men of Ideas. The Ideas of Chomsky." BBC Television. 1978.

Chomsky, Noam. "Government in the Future." Published at libcom.org. February 16, 1970.

Cole, Nicki Lisa, Ph.D. "The Three Historic Phases of Capitalism and How They Differ." ThoughtCo. Apr. 5, 2023.

Millard, Gregory. Vézina, Valérie. "Political Ideologies and Worldviews: An Introduction." https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/political-...

Smith, George. "The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism." Cambridge University Press. 2013.

[Marco den Ouden · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent short history of classical liberal thought. The breadth of Smith's knowledge of the subject is wide. He writes in a clear manner, making a complex subject understandable.

Smith covers many of the controversies in classical liberal thought and traces the roots of modern liberalism and how it diverged from the old liberalism. This includes the primary factor - the issue of natural rights liberalism versus utilitarian liberalism.

The book concludes with two chapters on individualism. The last is an account of methodological individualism and includes an intriguing discussion of sociology.

I will probably put together a more extensive review for my blog. If I do I'll edit this by adding a link to that review.

[Daniel Schotman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Way too short, but very interesting. Really opens the door to more of this early liberalism and read further on numerous founders of liberal ideas. It again really hammers the message home that Liberalism is perhaps much holder than the works of Benjamin Constant. Or, at least the ideas that we now associate with Liberalism.

Perhaps good to read before reading Edward Fawcett's book on Liberalism.

[Paul Sand · Rating 4 out of 5]

[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]

A short, excellent book requested successfully via the Boston Library Consortium. (Thanks for the loaner, Tisch Library at Tufts University!) It comes out under the stamp of the Cato Institute, who sponsored the author, George H. Smith.

It is—wait a minute, don't go to sleep yet—a history/exploration of the roots and themes of classical liberalism, spanning multitudinous political theorists and thinkers over centuries. Pictured on the cover are five biggies: Jefferson, Locke, Herbert Spencer, Paine, and J. S. Mill. But dozens more appear in the text.

There is no mistaking where Smith's sympathies lie, but he presents all sides: liberals vs. the illiberals, of course, but also a careful explication of the differing views between various flavors of liberals. He's particularly illuminating (and convincing) that the anti-natural rights approach favored by Bentham and his followers was ultimately a blank check to statists.

I didn't expect to find the book as interesting as I did. But Mr. Smith does a fine job of making old controversies seem alive. (Understandably: because those same issues are, while almost never specifically acknowledged, behind many of today's political debates.) One good example is Smith's chapter on "The Anarchy Game"; since "anarchy" was a widely acknowledged Scary Bad Thing, both liberals and their opponents sought to show the other side's arguments would irrevocably lead there. This is not without humor.

Although a lot of the folks Smith discusses are well-known to political-theory dilettantes (by which I mean: me), not all are. I was, anyway, previously unaware of Thomas Hodgskin. Amazingly, Wikipedia deems Hodgskin a "socialist", but in the excerpts quoted by Smith, he sounds more like a 19th-century Nick Gillespie.

[Behzad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is again one of those books that I could not help myself but to highlight almost every page of the book. The book demonstrates the lost endeavor of liberalism which now seems too far away from us as if we are talking about some ancient ideology.

In societies which we are constantly patching up here and there and parenting a beast no one likes any more, reading this and other similar books give us a moment to hold on and look at the landscape. It shows us how we reached our present condition and by removing all the confusion and taking us to logical consequences of many values we claim to embraced, demonstrate how unprepared and naive we are about our proclaimed values.

On one hand we condemn censorship of the press and on the other every morning we send off our kids to state-schools to be "prepared" and "educated" while ignoring the basic fact that these two are two sides of the same coin. We talk of freedom and then as if we want to empty the meaning of words we immediately start talking of welfare states and government managed social security.

All this are indicators of a deep confusion among those who carry the brand of liberalism and educated. This book, among many others like it help clarify these and many other confusions and demonstrate how many bright people in the past predicted our predicament at present.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's been a while since I've read George H. Smith's The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, but I thought it was pretty terrific. What's good about it basically is that he lays out two main views of liberalism, one called Old and the other called New. Old Liberalism espouses the most minimal form of government in order to take care of people's needs. New Liberalism espouses a larger government in order to take care of people's needs. The ends are the same: taking care of people's needs. But the proponents of each brand of liberalism believes in their way in particular to get there. Smith is good at making a case that this view, of Old Liberalism and New Liberalism, was right there at the beginning of Classical Liberalism, and didn't grow out as distinction until later, when people really began to have trouble making their principles fit reality.

This is a book I'll go back to.

[Nick Geiser · Rating 4 out of 5]

The System of Liberty is a great contribution to the intellectual history of liberalism. Several chapters stand out, particularly the discussion of liberalism and the public good, the relation between state sovereignty and what Smith calls "self-sovereignty", the "anarchy game" in liberalism (as well as liberal radicalism more broadly), and liberalism's idea of freedom.

Smith's discussion of liberal freedom stands out for its opposition to a received view of liberal freedom as "negative liberty." Smith opposes a "social" view of freedom, advocated by liberals like Locke that conceived freedom as embedded in a circle of concepts that includes rights and property, to a "mechanistic" view advocated by Hobbes and Filmer in which the primary role of government was to restrain freedom rather than protect it. Unfortunately, this "social" view has lost a spot at the table in contemporary discussion.

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aaron and I read this one out loud together and discussed as we went.

Things I liked: It exposed me to many 18th and 19th century classical liberals that I was not familiar with. I particularly want to read more Herbert Spencer. Smith's sentence level writing was very clear and readable, and I appreciated the academic rigor of this book.

Things I didn't like: Overall, the book is not cohesive or well-organized. It reads like a bunch of essays, not a unified book. I was not always clear on the purpose of each chapter, and there wasn't a structure that I could see that gave shape to the whole. Also, for a newbie to this topic, there wasn't enough background and context for me to integrate the information. Aaron provided it for me, but I don't think I would have made it through the book without his commentary.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

A delightful little book that provides a well-structured and coherent history of the (classical) liberal idea. It almost felt like taking a college course from a knowledgeable and likeable professor!