Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 10
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Flanigan, Jessica 2016. Rethinking freedom of contract. Philosophical Studies,


    Warner, John M. and Zink, James R. 2016. Therapeutic Politics: Rawls's Respect for Rousseau. The Review of Politics, Vol. 78, Issue. 01, p. 117.


    Bou-Habib, Paul 2015. Gaus on Coercion and Welfare-State Capitalism: A Critique. Political Studies, p. n/a.


    Claassen, Rutger 2015. The Capability to Hold Property. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 220.


    Néron, Pierre-Yves 2015. Rethinking the Very Idea of Egalitarian Markets and Corporations: Why Relationships Might Matter More than Distribution. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 25, Issue. 01, p. 93.


    Abel, Corey and Marsh, Leslie 2014. Austrian Economic Perspectives on Individualism and Society.


    Herzog, Lisa 2014. Adam Smith on Markets and Justice. Philosophy Compass, Vol. 9, Issue. 12, p. 864.


    Moriarty, Jeffrey 2014. Compensation Ethics and Organizational Commitment. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 24, Issue. 01, p. 31.


    von Platz, Jeppe 2013. ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT: GROTIAN LESSONS FOR LIBERTARIANS. Critical Review, Vol. 25, Issue. 1, p. 107.


    Tomasi, John 2012. DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY AND ECONOMIC LIBERTY. Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol. 29, Issue. 01, p. 50.


    ×

CAPITALISM IN THE CLASSICAL AND HIGH LIBERAL TRADITIONS*

  • Samuel Freeman (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265052510000208
  • Published online: 31 May 2011
Abstract
Abstract

Liberalism generally holds that legitimate political power is limited and is to be impartially exercised, only for the public good. Liberals accordingly assign political priority to maintaining certain basic liberties and equality of opportunities; they advocate an essential role for markets in economic activity, and they recognize government's crucial role in correcting market breakdowns and providing public goods. Classical liberalism and what I call “the high liberal tradition” are two main branches of liberalism. Classical liberalism evolved from the works of Adam Smith and the classical utilitarian economists; its major 20th century representatives include Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. The high liberal tradition developed from John Stuart Mill's works, and its major philosophical representatives in the 20th century are John Dewey and, later, John Rawls. This paper discusses the main distinguishing features of the classical and the high liberal traditions and their respective positions regarding capitalism as an economic and social system. Classical liberals, unlike high liberals, regard economic liberties and rights of private property in productive resources to be nearly as important as basic liberties. They conceive of equality of opportunity in more formal terms, and regard capitalist markets and the price system as essential not only to the allocation of production resources, but also as the fundamental criterion for the just distribution of income, wealth, and economic powers. High liberals, by contrast, regard the economic liberties as subordinate to the exercise of personal and civic liberties. They are prepared to regulate and restrict economic liberties to achieve greater equality of opportunities, reduce inequalities of economic powers, and promote a broader conception of the public good. And while high liberals endorse markets and the price system as essential to allocation of productive resources, they do not regard markets as the fundamental criterion for assessing just distributions of income, wealth, and economic powers and positions of responsibility. The paper concludes with some reflections upon the essential role that dissimilar conceptions of persons and society play in grounding the different positions on economic justice that classical and high liberals advocate.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 30, no. 2 (Spring2001): 105–51

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Philosophy and Policy
  • ISSN: 0265-0525
  • EISSN: 1471-6437
  • URL: /core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×