Why Am I a Genuine Liberal?

Article inspired by the book Liberalism by Pascal Salin, in the chapter “The Two Liberalisms“, which develops the ideas of liberal thinker Frédéric Bastiat.

In this article, we defend liberalism in its purest vision, as put forward by its earliest thinkers. The aim is to promote a philosophical, sincere, and accessible vision of liberal ideas, in opposition to the opportunistic and complex version that is widespread today.

It is common to hear ordinary people pejoratively describe their leaders as ultra-liberal. In reality, the opposite is true—and that is precisely the problem.

Let us see how the perception of liberalism has been distorted, including by those who claim to stand for it.

The divide between philosophical and utilitarian liberalism:

1. Philosophical liberalism (the original form):

Liberalism is a school of thought that puts individual freedom at the forefront of its concerns. Its reasoning is philosophical first, before being applied to economics.

The first question a genuine liberal asks is whether an individual’s civil liberties are respected. They are not interested in the benefits they might gain from a situation when forming their argument. Protecting property rights is one of their priorities. It is in order to protect this right, for example, that a liberal defends free trade. An individual who has worked hard (or not) to save should be free to dispose of the fruits of their labor by allocating them to whatever expenses they choose. And no one has any business objecting, apart from the market, which is the sum of individual interests.

This quotation from Frédéric Bastiat illustrates the point very well: “Exchange is a natural right, just like property. Any citizen who has created or acquired a product must have the option either to put it to immediate use or to transfer it to anyone, anywhere in the world, who agrees to give them in exchange the object of their desire. To deprive them of this ability, when they make no use of it contrary to public order and good morals, and solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize plunder; it is to violate the law of justice.” (“Declaration of the Association for Free Trade”).

Introducing tariffs or measures designed to penalize imports would, for example, directly affect an individual’s property right over their savings by preventing them from allocating them appropriately. They would be forced to buy a local product that might be less suited to their circumstances and personal preferences (someone who admires Tesla cars and has saved for several years will not want a Renault out of patriotism, however beautiful it may be). Besides limiting people’s choices, such a measure would keep domestic businesses in an artificially comfortable position, reducing their need to innovate, match prices, and therefore make their exports competitive. As you may have noticed, we have discussed the economic benefits only as a secondary consideration—and that is precisely what distinguishes opportunistic liberals.

2. Utilitarian (opportunistic) liberalism:

The utilitarian liberal, by contrast, adapts liberal reasoning to their personal convictions and to the advantage they can gain in a given situation. This way of constructing an argument can lead them to reason liberally on one issue and then socialistically on another. Opportunistic liberalism, unfortunately the most widespread form today, can lead to counterproductive outcomes. Consider a European tourist: on the one hand, they enjoy a much simpler journey thanks to the creation of the Schengen Area. It is a measure unique in the world, allowing European citizens to move easily across unified borders. On the other hand, this traveler is hit by a whole series of taxes on air and road travel intended to discourage them from getting around. We removed customs posts and visas with one hand while increasing taxes on gasoline, kerosene, and short-haul flights with the other. In other words, we campaigned for freedom of movement, while the very next day campaigning to curtail that freedom in the name of environmental protection. Where is the logic?

Is the genuine liberal an extremist?

Listening to us promote genuine liberalism, you might wonder whether we are a little extreme. Are there not situations in which it would be better to set liberal convictions aside in favor of a little well-placed interventionism? Genuine liberals are convinced otherwise, and try to prove it with an example that might intuitively seem to weigh against them:

Imagine that every country bordering France decided to tax its exports at 60%. Would France benefit from imposing a matching 60% tax on imports from those countries? The answer from genuine liberals is no. The economist Frédéric Bastiat then gives the example of the town of Stulta, which suddenly decides to restrict imports from the town of Puera so as not to be flooded with its goods. Here is what he has an old man from Puera say: “The obstacles created by Stulta harm our sales; that is a misfortune. Those we have created ourselves harm our purchases, and that is a misfortune. We can do nothing about the first, but the second is up to us. Let us at least free ourselves from one, since we cannot rid ourselves of both. Let us abolish our restrictions without demanding that Stulta do the same. One day, no doubt, it will learn to keep better accounts.” (Reciprocity, Economic Sophisms).

If this article has piqued your curiosity, we highly recommend reading Liberalism by Pascal Salin, published by Odile Jacob (€29.90).