The philosophy of natural rights is a particular one to which they don't subscribe because they don't believe in liberty as non-domination. Those who call themselves libertarians and who tended to simply be called liberals in the 19th century, do indeed have a broad definition of property that includes civils rights. Political rights, however, are based on the property of material goods (at least for the founders of liberalism, like Constant), because, according to the theory, only the propertied have the leisure to think about the public interest (of course, it's easy to demonstrate that if many of them spend a good deal of their leisure time thinking about politics, it's not the public interest they're trying to get out of it - for the vast majority - it's their own. Constant is, of course, not a "pure" liberal in the sense of Mandeville, since he believes there is a public interest to be reflected upon and not merely miraculously created through the conjunction of individual interests).
Now, of course, economic liberalism, contrary to the prevailing propaganda, can go along with any political system except one that respects natural rights theory (for which "property" as a natural right refers to what is "proper" to humanity, which is to say that which cannot be alienated - existence, liberty and its corollary equality, which is merely the reciprocity of liberty and is in no way in opposition to it, and the rights that derive from those: the droit des gens, etc. The property of material goods is a right in society, which is to say an institution that can be modified according to society's needs and which can't be allowed to interfere with natural rights). Not all economic liberals subscribe to Constant's system. Turgot had no problem with the iron fist of the monarchy ordering peasants and artisans who dared protest the lifting of regulation of bread prices that was making it impossible to feed themselves and their families to be shot in cold blood. The more recent incarnations are all for universal suffrage, as long as money can be used to influence elections.
To make my point more simply, however, a liberal/libertarian's definition of rights can be as broad or narrow as you like, but it always includes the ownership of material goods, where as the philosophy of natural rights can also include more or fewer rights, depending on how much you believe may reasonably be extrapolated from it, but those rights don't include a "natural" right to the ownership of material goods. My point in bringing up Constant or Turgot is simply to point out that despite what the current orthodoxy would have us believe, there is no inevitable connection between economic liberalism and democracy and instituting the former does not bring about the latter (to cut a very long story short, that's been our strategy in the "developping" world and it's failed abysmally).
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-05-23 09:55 am (UTC)Now, of course, economic liberalism, contrary to the prevailing propaganda, can go along with any political system except one that respects natural rights theory (for which "property" as a natural right refers to what is "proper" to humanity, which is to say that which cannot be alienated - existence, liberty and its corollary equality, which is merely the reciprocity of liberty and is in no way in opposition to it, and the rights that derive from those: the droit des gens, etc. The property of material goods is a right in society, which is to say an institution that can be modified according to society's needs and which can't be allowed to interfere with natural rights). Not all economic liberals subscribe to Constant's system. Turgot had no problem with the iron fist of the monarchy ordering peasants and artisans who dared protest the lifting of regulation of bread prices that was making it impossible to feed themselves and their families to be shot in cold blood. The more recent incarnations are all for universal suffrage, as long as money can be used to influence elections.
To make my point more simply, however, a liberal/libertarian's definition of rights can be as broad or narrow as you like, but it always includes the ownership of material goods, where as the philosophy of natural rights can also include more or fewer rights, depending on how much you believe may reasonably be extrapolated from it, but those rights don't include a "natural" right to the ownership of material goods. My point in bringing up Constant or Turgot is simply to point out that despite what the current orthodoxy would have us believe, there is no inevitable connection between economic liberalism and democracy and instituting the former does not bring about the latter (to cut a very long story short, that's been our strategy in the "developping" world and it's failed abysmally).