Jim Devine writes: "The difference between classical and modern liberals comes from the sources of freedom and un-freedom and their definition of "freedom." The classicals see the state as the major source of un-freedom, except of course when it's protecting their individual property rights (which are the source of freedom). Folks like Milton Friedman see civil liberties (free speech, etc.) as unimportant compared to individual property rights and market freedom, but I'm sure that some of the classicals value civil liberties. Democracy doesn't seem to be valuable to the classical liberals, except in the form of a Lockean alliance of property-owners against the non-owners.
The moderns see the state as a source of freedom when it provides stuff like social services. In this view (and I agree), "individual freedom" involves the availability of choices (whether they're due to individual ownership of property or not). Thus, when the state (for example) preserves a public park such as Yellowstone, it provides choices to individuals, i.e., freedom. It of course is also violating other individuals' freedom (by taxing them, by keeping developers from abusing the land and natural species, etc.) But while the classicals don't seem to value democracy, the moderns see these trade-offs as being dealt with only via democracy." The notice of the state as a source of freedom in Anglo-American thought is traceable to the infiltration of Hegelian influences in the mid-19th Century. I blame T.H. Green. A disaster. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
