When I first started teaching, David Henderson gave me some advice. It’s about being open about who you are in terms of your financial philosophy. At the beginning of class (and several times during the course), I talk about being a classical liberal, a free market economist who argues that individuals are better suited than governments to deal with complex social relationships and problems. Although I do not completely rule out government intervention, I do make a strong assumption that freedom must be overcome before government intervention can be justified. Laws exist to enhance freedom, not restrict it.
This is some of the best educational advice I’ve gotten. For many students, it fosters conversations about economics and liberalism outside of class, especially those who disagree with me philosophically. The campus is filled with beautiful oak trees. On sunny days, office hours are held outdoors, so I was able to have many fun conversations with students in the shade of a tree. Some students have liberal tendencies. I’m not, but some people are interested in the philosophy (or would like to present a counter-argument). But they all enrich the conversation. At least, that’s what I think.
Recently, a student asked me why I was a liberal. That’s a good question, and the answer is evolving. Admittedly, I’m a liberal for empirical reasons. Liberalism has brought unprecedented human prosperity and virtually eradicated true poverty in liberal countries. Liberal countries tend to be more tolerant, peaceful, wealthy, healthy, creative, and happy. There are countless books that document this, but for those who want a more dramatic read, I recommend The Rise of the Cajun Mariners: The Race for Big Oil by Woody Fargow. Woody tells the story of Cajun sailors who started with nothing and risked it all to become “oil boat kings.” This is possible only because of a liberal market economy. As Thomas Sowell once said, “I don’t believe in markets. I have proof of markets.”
If you were to ask me, “Why liberalism?” Twenty years ago, when I first started studying economics as a high school student, I would have stopped at empirical evidence. But since then, I have engaged with many liberal thinkers from the past (Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, John Miller, A.V. Dicey, F.A. Hayek, James M. Buchanan, etc.) and present (Don Boudreau, David Henderson, Pierre Lemieux, Russ Roberts, Dan Klein, etc.).
During that time, I came to have a deeper understanding of “liberalism” and “human flourishing.” In fact, I don’t think my current view lends itself very well to empirical matters. I would still be a liberal even if liberalism didn’t bring better material outcomes. I think James Buchanan expressed it best in his essay “Nature and Artificial Man” (reprinted in Volume 1 of the Collected Works of James M. Buchanan).
People want the freedom to be who they want to be. He does this because he doesn’t know what kind of person he wants to become eventually. Let’s eliminate once and for all the instrumental defense of freedom, which is the only thing that can be directly derived from orthodox economic analysis. Humans do not desire freedom in order to maximize their own utility or the utility of the society to which they belong. He wants the freedom to be who he wants to be. (pg 259, emphasis in original.)
Liberalism allows people to discover the best version of themselves and become whatever that version is. Will some people spoil it? of course. that’s ok. Do some people use their freedom to abuse others? of course. And therein lies the role of a liberal government in a liberal society. It is about punishing people who commit illegal acts. To me, the freedom to find and live the best life for yourself, no matter what it entails, as long as you don’t harm others, is a beautiful thing.
Liberalism is truly a social philosophy. It promotes social behavior because it promotes peace. For this reason, liberalism promotes social cohesion, unlike collectivist ideologies that do not prioritize the individual. It promotes human flourishing in countless ways. To that end, I’m a classic liberal.
Oak trees in the Nichols State University Quad, photo by author.
[1] In this post, I will use “liberal” and “classical liberal” interchangeably. they have the same meaning. “Liberal” here does not refer to the American left or the Democratic Party.
[2] These lists are not exhaustive. I have been fortunate to be associated with many great thinkers. Removal from these lists does not imply a lack of influence, nor is it meant to disrespect anyone.
As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.
