Liberalism today

Le Regard Libre N° 7 - Jonas Follonier

Interview with Frédéric Jollien, President of the Swiss section of European Students For Liberty.

Le Regard LibreWhat is liberalism?

Frédéric Jollien: Liberalism is a political philosophy that affirms the natural right of every human being. The principle of this right is that each individual is the owner of himself and his activity. It condemns aggression, which is defined as an attack on another's property against his or her consent.

Liberalism aims to reduce or eliminate all coercive acts by individuals on other individuals. While this principle is self-evident when it comes to the actions of isolated individuals (armed robbery, murder, etc.), it is unfortunately ignored when these actions are intended by officials or majorities (war, taxation, inflation, etc.). Its political battle is therefore to inform citizens of all the effects of legal coercion, and to fight against it. Liberalism does not participate in the cult of democracy as we perceive it today. Whether a minority is persecuted by a king or by the democratic consent of the people makes absolutely no difference. For a liberal, the true essence of democracy is the sovereignty of the individual over his or her personal life. Benjamin Constant gave a very good explanation of liberalism, separating the liberty of the Ancients, who claim that freedom is the right to express one's opinion in a ballot box, from the liberty of the Moderns, who claim the right to exercise private independence.

Is liberalism currently in a phase of extinction, or on the contrary in a phase of expansion?

It is generally reappearing after an XX^th It's an absolutely detestable century for this school of thought. There are the American libertarian movements (an Anglo-Saxon word for liberalism without being equated with liberalism of the socialist-oriented Democratic Party). In Africa, the liberal movement is really taking off among young people. In Europe, it's mainly the countries of Eastern Europe (with the exception of Russia) that are seeing a strong revival of philosophical and political liberalism. This revival has yet to make much of an impact on politics. The West, on the contrary, is the scene of an anti-capitalism that has become mainstream although this needs to be qualified according to local particularities. Above all, I've noticed an impressive progression among young people. Although the number of activists is negligible, the coherence and intellectual quality are very much present. The Internet has given us access to knowledge, improved debates and built up a militant community that we'd never seen before.

A new niche was born, a rather theoretical and advanced movement: the’anarcho-capitalism. What does this doctrine advocate? The law of the jungle?

For centuries, liberals have demonstrated that the state has no legitimacy in certain areas (such as religion or clothing), and that individual freedom must be guaranteed. This led to the creation of Human Rights, which were specifically designed to restrict state action. However, liberals remained convinced that the state had an essential role to play in guaranteeing the freedoms they defended. For example, if religious freedom was to be defended, a neutral intermediary was needed to prevent people from imposing their religions on each other. The state was seen as the indispensable guarantor of individual freedoms. Anarcho-capitalism argues that these so-called «regalian rights» must cease, and that competition between the judiciary and security companies is not only feasible, but entirely desirable. This is not a new movement. One of the first to theorize about it was Gustave de Molinari, a 19th-century Belgian economist.^th century. It is the absolute culmination of political liberalism: the pure and simple abolition of the state. This movement drew much of its inspiration from American individualist socialism, and today also includes contributions from David Friedman, for example. The law of the jungle is the law of the strongest, the law of violence. Liberalism, on the other hand, asserts the natural rights of every man to his rightful property. It is the exact opposite of barbarism and the law of the strongest. For the man of little intellectual probity, the jungle argument makes it easy to win the approval of the masses. An analysis of political discourse shows that this sophism has been widely used to justify many despotisms. Unfortunately, this is still the case today. We need to know what we mean by the terms «order» and «jungle». Personally, I'd rather defend the Swiss jungle than North Korean order.

In your opinion, does the traditional left-right divide make sense, or should we fundamentally reform our conception and practice of debating ideas and politics?

The left-right divide is not linked to political philosophy but to the ideological trend of the moment. At present, the right is associated with civil interventionism (strong police, border control, cultural preservation etc.) and relative economic liberalism, while the left is economically interventionist but defends relative civil liberty (gay marriage, drug liberalization etc.). Historically, this hasn't always been the case. Liberals distance themselves completely from this divide and criticize its intellectual irrelevance. Since government decisions are heavily weighted towards economic issues, liberals are generally classified on the right, but you'll find them with the left in other battles, or sometimes completely alone.

Today, many politicians, intellectuals, journalists and ordinary citizens are denouncing a certain overemphasis on the importance of the individual over the common good. What do you think of this criticism?

This is a ridiculous sophism. You can't set one against the other. The current tendency is indeed to cry egoism, individualism and to glorify a common good that cannot be defined. But the common good cannot be a good if it does not improve the individual good. The «collective» whole is made up of its individuals. The people and society are abstractions with no defined conscience or characteristics. Who are these men capable of defining the «common good» of society in place of the individuals who make it up? It's a terrible fact that, as problems grow, so do these sophisms. One cannot think of certain historical events without shuddering with disquiet. So many horrors have been committed in the name of these ideas.

In your opinion, are the Liberals currently in the minority or in the majority among the Swiss population?

It depends on your point of view. Politically, there is little or none. Individuals tend to expect a lot from the state and lobby to defend their livelihood. It's the system they live in, and they're willing to suffer for it. As Bastiat said, «the State is that great fiction through which everyone tries to live at everyone else's expense.» In everyday life, however, they are full of liberalism: they don't tolerate theft, for example, and collaborate freely, exchanging and helping each other. In reality, people don't realize that their political actions are the exact opposite of their core values. They would never knock on their neighbors' door to confiscate a food product. On the other hand, they are ready to pass laws (food protectionism, banning of this type of food etc.) that will send men in blue to do it for them. It's rather strange that individuals attribute rights to an external entity, the state, that they would never attribute to themselves. 

Is man by nature a capitalist?

We must always define the terms we use to understand each other. Capitalism is what is meant by private ownership of property. The capitalist is defined as the man who keeps capital (property in monetary or non-monetary form) to improve his well-being, either today (by borrowing it and earning interest) or tomorrow (by reinvesting it or covering unforeseen losses). Yes, man is a capitalist, and so is his body: he stores goods for future use. It's not even unique to the human species: it's unique to all living beings. But capitalism is not necessarily liberal. Capital can be accumulated through aggression as much as through labor. It's important to make this distinction, because capitalism or liberalism are often equated with corporatism, slavery or other forms of aggression.

Is the Liberal-Radical Party liberal? Is it radical?

It's important to distinguish between a party and a political philosophy. A party exists first and foremost to win elections. The ideas it defends generally have no real philosophical coherence. You'll often hear parties claiming confederalism and cantonal autonomy, then flouting them in the next vote by claiming democratic rules and federal majority rule. At present, no party is absolutely liberal. While the PLR claims to represent a certain economic liberalism, it regularly proposes subsidies for one sector, regulations for others and bailouts when «necessary». The same applies to the subject of civil liberties: same-sex marriage agreements are not currently supported by the majority, the liberalization of drugs is not even an issue, and religious freedom is seriously challenged by a minority. Is the PLR more liberal or radical? This is a difficult question to answer. Already in the past, the Liberal Party was liberal only insofar as it was compared to the others. As for the Radical Party, it has no real political philosophy: it is the fruit of a union between French Jacobinism, religious liberalism, the beginnings of socialism and concessions made with the conservatives to arrive at the defense of constitutional federalism. This is the fruit of history rather than reason. But the PLR has changed, is changing and will change.

Can you be both conservative and liberal?

Yes, totally. Conservatism is not fundamentally a political doctrine. You can be conservative and still refuse to impose your vision on others. A liberal conservative must be logical and consistent. If he disapproves of homosexual unions, he must not prevent individuals from entering into marriage contracts with each other. If he disapproves of new technologies, he doesn't have to forbid others, by force of state, to use them. Similarly, if he wants a religious sign in his children's classroom, he doesn't have to impose it on everyone through compulsory schooling. On the other hand, he can assert his right to a religious education for his child, or the right to refuse the imposition of new technologies. He is master of his own life and property. Freedom implies the ability to voluntarily enter into contracts with others, and the right to refuse them. Liberalism is therefore not a moral dogma and is totally adaptable to individual choices. In a liberal world, conservatives can have their own schools and churches, and socialists can set up their kibbutzes and live in freely consenting communities.

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