The Impossibility of Dogmatic Liberalism
Free-Market Liberalism Is Hardly Dogmatic, Intolerant, or Even Impatient
JUNE 01, 2005 by SHELDON RICHMAN
On the day I decided to write on the impossibility of dogmatic liberalism (you know what I mean by “liberal”), I thought it would be helpful to have a quotation from some prominent person referring to this imagined intellectual offense. Wouldn’t you know it that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman would oblige? In a March 18 column about the World Bank and its new chief, Paul Wolfowitz, Krugman writes, “Dogmatic views about the universal superiority of free markets have been losing ground around the world.”
It may be true that belief in the universal superiority of free markets (over what?) is not as popular as it was a few years ago. I don’t know. But if true, it is partly because the “free market” label has been attached promiscuously to “reforms” in the ex-communist and developing countries. For example, when a regime sells state factories to cronies who formerly ran them as government officials, it is wrongly regarded as privatization.
But that’s not the subject of today’s discussion. Instead I want to examine this notion of “dogmatic views about the universal superiority of free markets,” or dogmatic liberalism for short. It strikes me as incoherent in all but the most trivial sense. Liberalism ultimately is a set of ethical ideas. “It is wrong to initiate force” is a moral principle. Liberalism is universalizable, which is to say that since it is derived from requirements imposed by human nature and the nature of the world, it is valid for all human beings everywhere. And yes, liberals regard their principles as demonstrably true. Of course, anyone may question it—but only to the extent he is free to question anything; that is, to the extent he lives in a society that honors liberal principles, of which intellectual freedom is one. On the other hand, there is no liberal claim to omniscience or revelation. That’s why liberals favor the competitive division of labor and knowledge. Claims of omniscience are happily left to the advocates of central planning.
There of course is a side to the term “dogmatism” that connotes a wish to impose something on someone. And it is in this sense that the charge of “dogmatic liberalism” shows itself to be incoherent. Free-market liberalism is the philosophy of non-imposition.“Anything that’s peaceful,” Leonard Read said. That hardly sounds dogmatic, intolerant, or even impatient.
A liberal society embodies the greatest degree of decentralization, of both knowledge and authority. It has no center of control over information or planning. Individuals are free to discover their own knowledge, choose their own authorities, formulate their own doctrines, and make their own plans. They need no one’s approval. All they must do is respect life, liberty, and property. Professor Krugman should say what he regards as superior to that.
To grapple with the uncertain future, people evolve institutions and traditions, and they cling to them tenaciously in the face of challenge. But absent government backing, they cannot prevent others from building alternative institutions and traditions.There is always a rising generation full of people who believe things can be done better. In a market liberal society, they are free to try.While most will eventually come to terms with the prevailing mores, others will persist and in the process make significant and lasting changes at the margin. The accumulated changes of several generations can be dramatic. Market societies are moderately dynamic. No vested interest can find state-imposed shelter, but change is rarely disorienting.
It can hardly be dogmatism to advocate such a society. In fact, the idea that liberalism can be imposed on societies with little or no tradition of freedom is to misconstrue the philosophy.
F. A. Hayek wrote in “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” “[T]he liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. …[I]t seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism . . . the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution.”
Is this dogmatism? Or is that term more properly applied to those, such as Professor Krugman, who presumptuously call on government to disrupt the peaceful cooperation of the marketplace?
* * *
During the Revolutionary War, Americans were divided between the Patriots and the Loyalists. But there was also a third force, the Radical Patriots, and things would have turned out far different had they prevailed. Becky Akers explains why.
If proponents of the freedom philosophy could persuade people of one lesson it might be: Good intentions aren’t enough. Andrew Morriss has some evidence that he brought back from Guatemala.
Austria is the home of the waltz and, for some of us, sound economics. Could the dance and the discipline possibly have anything else in common? John Hood’s answer may be surprising.
In their unending hostility to the individualistic automobile, the social engineers tout mass transit as the vehicle waiting to take us to a paradise with neither traffic congestion nor air pollution.Today the “in” form of mass transit is light rail. But as John Semmens demonstrates, the case for light rail is light indeed.
Elections in the Middle East have the American political discussion abuzz about the prospects for democracy in that region of repressive regimes. Unfortunately, all too often democracy is mistaken for freedom. In this issue’s Timely Classic, Edmund Opitz shows that these are two very different things.
Of all the ideas floating around about Social Security, one of the worst has to be lifting the cap on the amount of income exposed to the payroll tax. David Henderson makes the economic and moral case against this move.
Explorations far and wide have led our columnists to these results: Richard Ebeling wonders where the button-pushers are. Donald Boudreaux defends the decision to shop at Wal-Mart. Robert Higgs tells the story of the short-lived Republic of West Florida. Charles Baird reports on union hostility to the secret ballot. And Jude Blanchette, reading the assertion that competitiveness correlates with government activism, shoots back, “It Just Ain’t So!”
In the book department, reviewers analyze volumes on Woodrow Wilson’s war, the American empire, the mild West, and practical economics.
Filed Under : Free Markets