In my three articles Autumn Issue Regulationhas just been published in print and online versions, and two of the books are, unsurprisingly, reviews of recent books on individual freedom.
The first is by Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi. Individualistprovides a detailed intellectual history of libertarianism since its origins in the 19th century ( Magazine pages 40-43(The author’s typology is defensible, and his definition of libertarianism is broad enough to include not only the most radical libertarians but also modern versions of classical libertarianism. This is a serious, well-argued book that will be challenging in many ways for both libertarians and non-libertarians.
One of my criticisms is the neglect of Antonius Jassai. I wrote:
The book offers little consideration of the contemporary school of libertarian thought. Nowhere is there any mention of the work of economist and political philosopher Anthony de Jassay, who, in my opinion, has radically renewed both the critique of the state and liberal-libertarian anarchy.Conservative Anarchist? Anthony de Jasay, 1925-2019De Jassey’s work undermines the standard left-right and progressive-conservative distinctions and sheds new light on political philosophy and libertarianism. Admittedly, he is not a well-known figure in academia, but his first and influential book was statewas published 40 years ago, and since I didn’t immediately realize its importance (Buchanan was earlier), I can’t offer an honest opinion.
The conclusion of my review is:
Is libertarianism too big a tent, with so many different kinds of people? Individualist They believe that “libertarianism is not by chance an inherently diverse ideology” and that “the tension between radicals and reactionaries is not by chance but inherent to libertarian thinking.” They seem to attribute this characteristic to different circumstances in which the primary threat to freedom has changed. Perhaps it is also because libertarianism is defined along a different dimension than the standard left-right spectrum, namely the dimension of individual choice/collective choice. In any case, analysis, debate, peaceful diversity, and tolerance are positives, not negatives. Zwolinski and Tomasi’s book is a useful guide to these questions.
The second book I review in this hot issue is Regulation It defends the Middle Ages as a precursor to classical liberalism. The Constitution of Medieval Liberty: The Political Foundations of Western Liberalism (look Pages 51-54 Regulation online“The Economics of Economics” by two libertarian economists, Alexander William Salter and Andrew Young. The opening line of my review:
The Middle Ages seem mysterious. The period from the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the 15th century is often (previously, at least) called the Dark Ages. But this period was followed by the Renaissance, the Early Modern Period, and in the 18th and 19th centuries the Age of Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and (in Deirdre McCloskey’s words) the “Age of the Great Magnates.” There must have been something about the Middle Ages that was compatible with the birth of modernity.
Salter and Young explain what that was. They also argue that the degree of freedom we have is not due to a development in “state capacity” (today’s academic term) that occurred from the Middle Ages to the modern era. Enlightenment Rather, it runs counter to the decentralized political power that characterized the High Middle Ages (the 11th to 13th centuries). Let me quote the last few paragraphs of my review:
Medieval constitutions did not survive long after the High Middle Ages, especially due to shocks from the 14th century. The Black Death, a plague or viral epidemic, struck Europe between 1347 and 1351, killing between one-eighth and two-thirds of the population, depending on the region. Another shock was the siege artillery, which created economies of scale in coercive power and eliminated the relative advantage of fortified places. Centralized nation-states emerged with a “state capacity” to produce what we would now call public goods.
Scholars of state capacity believe that the privatization of political power during the High Middle Ages hindered the centralization of the state and the building of useful state capacity, especially to support economic growth. They point to a correlation between high tax rates and high economic growth since the Industrial Revolution.A leviathan in chains that roams and growsFall 2021, and “A fashionable appeal to a compassionate nationOne example of the negative effects of medieval decentralised institutions can be seen in the guilds that existed from the 11th to the 18th centuries, which restricted innovation and competition among craftsmen. Local tolls are another example. The argument is that only a modern central government could remove these obstacles to great wealth. Salter and Young see the state capacity debate as a “great challenge” and seek to resolve it.
The state capacity explanation for economic development has been challenged by many scholars, including Peter Becque, Roselino Candela, Vincent Geloso, Ennio Piano, and Salter and Young themselves. Strong states can be as predatory as producers of public goods. Historically, state capacity has generally constrained economic development; one only needs to think of imperial China, or more recently North Korea and the USSR. To support prosperity, state capacity must be limited by the rule of law and market economics. States must be constrained in the use of their capacity. The rise of Western nations to great wealth suggests that something must have prevented state capacity from becoming predatory. Salter and Young argue that this something was “a set of background constraints inherited by the constitutional heritage of medieval Europe.”
It is therefore impossible to explain the “richness of modernity” without the conditions that existed in the High Middle Ages: “The rise of the West must be seen not as an escape from the High Middle Ages, but as a continuation of the primitive liberal tradition established in the High Middle Ages,” the authors write.
Salter and Young’s book confirms that capitalism, or individual freedom more generally, is the product of anarchy, or at least polycentric and limited political power. They reiterate that the Middle Ages were not perfect, and humanity had to wait for the classical liberalism of the 19th century to get a glimpse of the benefits that individual freedom can produce.
Sociologist and historian Jean Baechler makes a similar point (emphasis his):
The expansion of capitalism has its origin and its raison d’être in political anarchy.
*******************************************
DALL-E HOPES SOMEONE IS LISTENING
