Liberalism is necessary, but is it sufficient?

Liberalism doesn't claim to say everything. It only answers the question of the political organization of society, which must be based on respect for negative freedoms. This in no way precludes a positive and complementary conception of freedom.

With this month's dossier, we hope to clear up a few misunderstandings about liberalism. One in particular surrounds the adjective «neoliberal». It is used at best to denigrate ideas that are simply liberal in the classical sense of the term (no doubt because too many liberals have sown the seeds of doubt by distancing themselves from their own family), and at worst to criticize measures that have nothing to do with liberalism, and which are in fact the opposite of it, such as the State coming to the rescue of bankrupt companies - banks, for example...

There is, however, a more convincing use of the term, in a more descriptive and not necessarily defamatory sense. Taken literally, «neoliberalism», as its prefix suggests (which it shares with neofeminism, or neo-Nazism), designates a «new wave of liberalism». As defined, for example, by Daniel Schulthess, Professor Emeritus of the History of Philosophy at the University of Neuchâtel, in Le Regard Libre N° 82, the concept refers to a generalization of market logicthe whole economy should operate according to the invisible hand theorized by Scottish philosopher Adam Smith in the 18th century^th century – hence the globalization and financialization of the economy – and all human reality would be reducible to the economy.

As Daniel Schulthess shows in this article, Adam Smith himself does not make this generalization. And neither Smith nor any other liberal conceives of man as a being characterized solely by the rational pursuit of self-interest (as in the case of the market).

Read also | How can liberalism and education be reconciled?

Rather, the question is whether every liberal thinks that politics should put in place something more than the market - at a guess, a state. Most liberals think so. minarchists – libertarians – who consider the existence of a minimal state to protect freedoms to be legitimate – to ordoliberals – who believe that the state must also ensure the framework conditions for the economy, by fighting monopolies and cartels for example. Liberals who regard all public power as illegitimate – the anarchocapitalists – are rare. When we speak of «neoliberals», perhaps we often have these authors in mind, such as Murray Rothbard. Or equally interesting personalities like Milton Friedman, who, while tolerating the existence of a state, recommended that it withdraw in a whole range of areas, from issuing banknotes to taxing inheritance, for both moral and efficiency reasons.

Liberalism is easy to sum up. It is a philosophical, political and economic intellectual tradition that postulates the inviolability of individual freedoms - of conscience, expression, association and enterprise. The individual is the owner of his or her freedoms, and can therefore enjoy them as long as they do not encroach on those of others. How this principle of non-aggression manifests itself in concrete terms in complex cases such as the labor market, pollution, etc., is of course a matter of debate.

Unlike socialism or fascism, liberalism offers no program for individuals or society. It simply sets out a framework that must be respected in order to enable peaceful coexistence, wealth creation and the search for truth. This framework is above all provided by the law. In a democracy, liberals have stressed the importance of checks and balances, education and intermediary bodies.

Read also | «Tocqueville had a fair mind»

Necessary, but is it sufficient? For political rules, perhaps, but not for everything else. Liberalism does not claim all to say. It only answers the question of how to organize society, which must be based on the universality of natural human rights, understood as negative rights. This in no way precludes a conception positive and complementary to freedom, as Pascal Couchepin maintains in his latest column. Freedom is oriented towards the good, but this good remains to be determined. The ethics of life, like philosophy in general, must be the subject of debate, the only guarantee of individual and collective progress. It's by believing we've found certainties in this area, and wanting to impose them, that we recreate a misunderstanding. At the risk of engendering evil itself.

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com

You have just read an article from our LIBERALISM dossier, published in our print edition (Le Regard Libre N°111).