Abstract
No society has ever fully exemplified that form which classical liberals maintain is best. Classical liberal ideas greatly influenced the founding fathers of the USA in their design of its constitution. They also inspired much reform in Britain in the nineteenth century. However, today, neither society comes close to being a liberal polity as classical liberals conceive of one. Both contain far too much legislation and regulation restrictive of the liberty of members. Among such is all that which authorizes the government to impose taxes so as to create a far higher degree of material equality than would otherwise exist. All taxation for such redistributive purposes amounts to interference with what would otherwise be the spontaneous distributive outcome of the voluntary transactions between individuals. In the eyes of classical liberals, government acts other than innocuously when it compels one person to part with portions of what would otherwise be their own property for the sake of supplying benefits to others. This is so, despite such governmental activity being supposedly benevolent in intent. It worsens the lives of those compelled to pay these taxes. Such governmental redistribution undoubtedly receives the support of the mass of the electorate in such societies. But majority approval no more makes such taxation morally right than where what receives majority approval is the extermination or persecution of some ethnic or religious minority.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).
John Rawls, ‘Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1985, vol. 14, p. 227.
I owe the criticisms that follow to David Gauthier, ‘Justice and Natural Endowment: Toward a Critique of Rawls’ Ideological Framework’, Social Theory and Practice, vol. 3, 1974, pp. 32–6.
John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 276–7.
David Gauthier, Morals by Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 253–4.
Thomas Nagel, Equality and Partiality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
R. Dworkin, ‘Why Liberals Should Believe in Equality’, New York Review of Books, 3 February 1983, pp. 32–4, 33.
R. Dworkin, ‘Liberalism’, in S. Hampshire (ed.), Public and Private Morality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 127.
Kai Nielsen, Equality and Liberty: A Defence of Radical Egalitarianism (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld Publishers, 1985).
Ted Honderich, Conservatism (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1990).
F. A. Hayek, Individualism and the Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 14.
Franz Brentano, The Foundation and Construction of Ethics (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973), p. 332.
Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, Seventh Edition 1907 (London: Macmillan, 1963), p. 436.
Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Deal, Free Market Environmentalism (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991), p. 164.
J. J. Thomson, ‘A Defence of Abortion’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 2, 1971, pp. 47–66.
J. S. Mill, ‘Utilitarianism’, in John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Other Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 189.
Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960), p. 22.
John Gray, Liberalism (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986), p. 74.
For example, Joan Kennedy-Taylor, Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Rediscovered (New York: Prometheus Books, 1992).
Susan Moller Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp. 3– 4.
Caroline New and Miriam David, For the Children’s Sake (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985), pp. 41–3.
George Gilder, ‘The Myth of the Role Revolution’, in N. Davidson (ed.), Gender Sanity: The Case Against Feminism (Lanham: University Press of America, 1989), pp. 231–3.
For a review of the evidence, see Anne Moir and David Jessel, Brain Sex (London: Michael Joseph, 1989), especially ch. 11.
For a good summary of this evidence, see, for example, Ellen Frankel Paul, Equity and Gender: The Comparable Worth Debate (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1989), ch. 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 David Conway
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Conway, D. (1995). Modern Liberalism. In: Classical Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230372191_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230372191_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-39631-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37219-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)