From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Philandros)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: History
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:35:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>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?

	John Locke is a start.  He advocated property rights.  He may
have been the one to launch classical liberal thought.  Classical
liberal thought is not necessarily just "one thing".  It has it roots
before the 19th century, was much developed and accepted in the 19th
century, and is still being developed today by people such as
libertarians.  I don't know of any one person who has a copyright
on Classical Liberalism.

>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.

	It was Locke.  The phrase "life, liberty, and property" was such
a buzz phrase of the time that I don't blame Jefferson for sprucing
it up by claiming a right to "the pursuit of happiness".  This does
NOT necessarily suggest that Jefferson secretly thought there was no
right to property, in fact "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
was not intended as an exhaustive listing of people's rights. Mr.
Vienneau, if you could offer some more convincing evidence that Jefferson
did not believe in a Lockean right to property, please share it with us.
Your example is little more than a curiosity.


>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.

	That sounds ridiculous to me.  Is there anything in the Federalist
or Anti-Federalist papers (or anywhere else) to back up this claim?  Is
there any evidence that Jefferson spoke out against property rights?
Please, let's have some hard evidence!


>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.

	I also doubt that Jefferson was an industrialist.  That was something
very new for the time.  This still doesn't mean that Jefferson was against
property rights.


>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.

	This is all generally true.  I don't like Hamilton's economics
however.  It wasn't necessary.


>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.

	I don't care where the term originated.  There are a number
of Americans in the 19th century who are often called Classical Liberals.
It's a term.  English, you know.


>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.

	Good jurisprudence, not perfect jurisprudence.  Obviously,
libertarians are opposed to the above examples, and are willing
to admit that the 19th century was not pure lassez-faire capitalism.
It was their loss (and ours).


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

	There are many different interpretations of history.
Historians color history with their own beliefs of the way society
works, and with common misinterpretations of the time.  A perfect
example is the common belief that in the "lassez-faire" of the 19th
century, there were oppresive monopolies, and government came to our rescue.
Libertarians correctly point that this is rubbish.  Government had
colluded with businessmen to create government-protected monopolies.
So _at least_ in this one area, libertarians have a more accurate
view of history than most people.  Why should we now assume that Libertarians
are "totally ignorant" of history?  It could just as easily be most
people in this country.  Perhaps the claim should have been:
"Libertarians don't agree with my favorite historians."


Mark Sulkowski