Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:27:44.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Liberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Norman P. Barry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 93 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), p. 33Google Scholar. It is to be noted, however, that Nozick's individualism is moral rather than methodological. In fact, he is sceptical of the claim of the Austrian economists that a genuine social science entails a methodology which is exclusively individualistic. See his ‘On Austrian Methodology’, Synthese, XXXVI (1977), 353–92.Google Scholar

2 The clearest and simplest application of the Chicago approach to normative social questions can be found in Friedman, M., Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar and , M. and Friedman, R., Free to Choose (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1980)Google Scholar. See also Stigler, George, The Citizen and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975)Google Scholar. It is perhaps misleading to identify so closely the views of Friedman with the Chicago School, since some political economists associated with Chicago, such as Frank Knight and Henry Simons, had different methodological views and also structured their versions of liberalism somewhat differently. However, I have used the Friedmanite system of Chicago liberalism for expository convenience rather than historical accuracy.

3 See Friedman, M., ‘The Methodology of Positive Economies’, in his Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 3–43.Google Scholar

4 See Friedman, M., ‘Value Judgements in Economies’, in Hook, S., ed., Human Values and Economic Policy (New York: New York University Press, 1967), p. 86.Google Scholar

5 Hospers, John, Libertarianism (Los Angeles: Nash, 1971), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

6 Major Statements of Austrian social science can be found in von Mises, L., Human Action (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949)Google Scholar, Theory and History (London: Cape 1958)Google Scholar, and Socialism (London: Cape, 1951)Google Scholar, and in von Hayek, F. A., The Gounter-Revolution of Science (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1952)Google Scholar and Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967).Google Scholar

7 See Mises, , SocialismGoogle Scholar, and Hayek, 's essays on ‘Socialist Calculation’ in Individualism and Economic Order (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1948).Google Scholar

8 Sowell, Thomas, Knowledge and Decisions (New York: Basic Books, 1980).Google Scholar

9 Sowell, , Knowledge and Decisions, p. 238 (italics in original).Google Scholar

10 Mises, , Theory and History, p. 238.Google Scholar

11 von Hayek, F. A., Law, Legislation and Liberty: Vol. iii, The Political Order of a Free People (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), p. 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Hayek, , The Political Order of a Free People, p. 166.Google Scholar

13 This summary of the views of the Virginia School is based on Buchanan, James's Fiscal Theory and Political Economy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960)Google Scholar, Cost and Choice (Chicago: Markham, 1969)Google Scholar and The Limits of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Tullock, Gordon's The Vote Motive (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1976)Google Scholar and Buchanan, and Tullock, 's The Calculus of Consent (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See Buchanan, , The Limits of Liberty, Chap. 7.Google Scholar

15 See Buchanan, J. and Wagner, R., Democracy in Deficit (New York: Academic Press, 1977)Google Scholar, for an account of the destabilizing effect of government at the macro level.

16 Buchanan's major expression of his political philosophy is The Limits of Liberty, but some of his arguments are refined in Freedom in Constitutional Contract (Austin, Texas: A and M University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

17 Buchanan, , Freedom in Constitutional Contract, p. 82.Google Scholar

18 Rand, Ayn, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: Signet, 1967), p. 20.Google Scholar

19 See Machan, T., Human Rights and Human Liberties (Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1975)Google Scholar and Mack, E., ‘Egoism and Rights’, The Personalist, LIV (1973), 5–33Google Scholar. Of Rand, Ayn's novels, that which expresses her philosophy most forcefully is Atlas Shrugged (New York: Random House, 1957).Google Scholar

20 Rand, Ayn, ‘The Objectivist Ethics’, in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1965), p. 213.Google Scholar

21 See Machan, , Human Rights and Human Liberties, pp. 82–3.Google Scholar

22 Nozick, Robert, ‘On the Randian Argument’, The Personalist, LII (1971), 282–303Google Scholar, reprinted in Reading Nozick, ed. Paul, J. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982), pp. 206–31.Google Scholar

23 Rand, , ‘Man's Rights’, in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 94.Google Scholar

24 Nozick, , Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 6.Google Scholar

25 For the following analysis I have drawn heavily on two important articles, Childs, Roy, ‘The Invisible Hand Strikes Back’Google Scholar, and Rothbard, Murray N., ‘Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State’, both published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1 (1977), 23–33 and 45–57 respectivelyGoogle Scholar. See also an important article by Goldsmith, Maurice, ‘The Entitlement Theory of Justice Reconsidered’, in Political Studies, XXVII (1979), 578–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Nozick, , Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 49.Google Scholar

27 Steiner, Hillel, ‘The Natural Right to the Means of Production’, Philosophical Quarterly, XXVII (1977), 41–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 See von Hayek, F. A., The Constitution of Liberty (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960), p. 136.Google Scholar

29 Nozick discusses this distinction in Anarchy, State and Utopia, pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

30 This exposition is reconstructed from the following works by Rothbard, Murray N., Man, Economy and State (Los Angeles: Nash, 1962)Google Scholar, Power and Market (Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1970)Google Scholar and For a New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1978)Google Scholar. Also, I am extremely grateful to Professor Rothbard for kindly allowing me to see the manuscript of his important work, The Ethics of Liberty (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, forthcoming).

31 Rothbard, , For a New Liberty, p. 28.Google Scholar

32 Rothbard, , Man, Economy and State, p. 78.Google Scholar

33 Rothbard, , Power and Market, p. 242.Google Scholar

34 Friedman, David, The Machinery of Freedom (New York: Arlington House, 1978).Google Scholar

35 See Rothbard, Murray N., Towards a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics (New York: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1977), pp. 2–9Google Scholar. Originally published in a Festschrift for Mises in 1956.

36 Rothbard's principle of rectification can be found in his ‘Justice and Property Rights’, in Blumenfeld, S., ed., Property in a Humane Economy (La Salle: Open Court, 1974), pp. 101–22.Google Scholar

37 For a detailed and scholarly account of the ideas of those writers, see Martin, James, Men Against the State (Colorado Springs: Myles, 1953).Google Scholar

38 See Cohen, G., ‘Capitalism, Freedom and the Proletariat’, in Ryan, A., ed., The Idea of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar