From: rob@KAMAN.COM (Rob Vienneau)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Historical misunderstanding
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:39:21 GMT

Throughout the net libertarians are always shovelling out the idea
that they are "Classical Liberals," that the founding fathers of the
United States government were Classical Liberals, and that therefore
they're defending the philosophy of the constitution against later
attacks and perversions. If this is not a joke, perhaps somebody can
tell me who among the following advocated classical liberal positions?

The british philosopher John Locke (or was it Hume?) wrote about the
rights of "life, liberty, and property." Thomas Jefferson, fully aware
of this, wrote in the Declaration of Independence about the rights of
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Note the change.

The historian Charles Beard argued that the constitution was a
counter-revolution against the ideals set loose by the Declaration of
Independence. The constitution was written to protect the interests of
property. Note Jefferson was in France, I believe, at the time of the
constitutional convention.

In 1776, Adam Smith came out with the Wealth of Nations. Both of the
leaders of what later became the two dominant parties in the U.S.
thought it was a mistaken book. Thomas Jefferson thought that
industrial development was a bad idea. He wanted a nation of yeoman
farmers, not stupid laborers. He agreed with Smith that
industrialization and the division of labor would make the masses
stupid. Therefore, to keep democracy workable, industrial development
should be prevented. Jefferson thought a weak state would hinder that
development.

Alexander Hamilton thought economic development was a good idea, but
it needed state guidance to foster it. He came up with the original
formulation of the "infant industry" argument for defending tariffs.
As a matter of fact, Hamilton won this argument as the early republic
proceeded to pursue a policy of government-sponsored "internal
improvements" of canals, roads, and, later, railroads.  This was known
as the "American System."  All of us in upstate NY should know how
important this was in determining local demographics for almost 200
years. Chicago residents should know that Stephen Douglas' efforts to
ensure almost every railroad went through Chicago had a lot to with
their development. Also high tariffs were a big cause of the Civil
War.

Turning to Britain, where the term "Classical Liberalism" actually
originated, we find the well-known novelist Charles Dickens mocking
the "philosophers" who argued for "free markets."  Oliver Twist can be
read as extensive mockery. The liberal political philosopher John
Stuart Mill advocated feminism and a precursor of Fabian Socialism.
The political party known as the Liberals argued that government
functions should be centralized in the national government for reasons
of efficiency and rationalism, while Disraeli's Tories argued, mostly
for highly romanticized reasons, for a small central government and
more power to localities. On the other hand, libertarians can claim
the Manchester school as precursors fairly accurately, I guess.

Back in the U.S.A., around the time of the Civil War, we find a change
in laws dealing with incorpoation. This change, well after the
founding, was what allowed the plutocrats of great wealth to set up
large corporations in the period between the Civil War and the
Depression. During this period, we also find an activist Supreme Court
overturning laws regulating wages, hours, etc. Their excuse? The 14th
amendment, which clearly was not intended to protect the property
rights of corporations. For some misguided reason, libertarians point
to this period as an example of good jurisprudence.

So does anybody want to try to convince me to change my belief that
libertarians are totally ignorant of history?

                                     Robert Vienneau
                                     rob@kaman.com