Classical Liberalism: John Locke's Influence During the Enlightenment

Classical Liberalism
HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY Page 1

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

Project submitted to
Ms. xyz
(Faculty: Political Science)

Project submitted by

Semester I; Section: C
Roll no. 176

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
RAIPUR, C.G.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am highly elated to carry out my research on the topic, Classical Liberalism. I would like to
give my deepest regard to my course teacher Ms. , who held me with her immense advice,
direction and valuable assistance, which enabled me to march ahead with this topic. I would like
to thank my friends, who gave me their precious time for guidance and helped me a lot in
completing my project by giving their helpful suggestion and assistance. I would like to thankmy
seniors for their valuable support. I would also like to thank the library staff and computer lab
staff of my university for their valuable support and kind cooperation

Semester I


CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION..4

I. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.6
II. OBJECTIVES6

2. JOHN LOCKE AND THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT...7
3. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS ...11
4. CONCLUSION..18
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WEBLIOGRAPHY....20


INTRODUCTION

The heart of liberalism is the absence of coercion by others; consequently, the liberal state's
commitment to protecting liberty is, essentially, the job of ensuring that citizens do not coerce
each other without compelling justification.
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which
primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of
the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and
urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States
1
.
It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property
rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that
had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke,
Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological
understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which
argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual
freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern
form of neo-classical liberalism.
The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century
liberalism from the newer social liberalism.
2
The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes
used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and
libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of individual
freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.
Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke's Second Treatise of
Government and "A Letter Concerning Toleration", which had been written as a defence of the

1
M. O. Dickerson et al., An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach (2009) p. 129
2
What Is Classical Liberalism?" is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as all liberalism before
the 20th Century.

Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for
Britain's new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the
American Revolution. However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke's writings or
scarcely mentioned, and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. There is little
mention, for example, of constitutionalism, the separation of powers, and limited government.
James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke's writing: individualism, consent,
the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property, and
religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned
individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the
community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given
consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above.
This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.
3

As a trustee, Government was expected to serve the interests of the people, not the rulers, and
rulers were expected to follow the laws enacted by legislatures. Locke also held that the main
purpose of men uniting into commonwealths and governments was for the preservation of their
property. Despite the ambiguity of Locke's definition of property, which limited property to "as
much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of", this principle
held great appeal to individuals possessed of great wealth.
Locke held that the individual had the right to follow his own religious beliefs and that the state
should not impose a religion against Dissenters. But there were limitations. No tolerance should
be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing
allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.
4

3
Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Routledge, 2010, ISBN 978-0-415-56789-3
4
George Miller. On Fairness and Efficiency. The Policy Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1-86134-221-8 p.344

.OBJECTIVES

1. To have a detailed study of the concept of Classical Liberalism

2. To analyze the phases in which the concept of Classical Liberalism evolved, especially
during the Age of Enlightenment.

3. To discuss the scope of John Lockes works.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research adopted for the project is the analytical and descriptive method.
The texts that were used for the project include articles, research papers and news given in
various websites as well as online journals


JOHN LOCKE AND THE AGE OF
ENLIGHTENMENT

Puritan-born John Locke trained at Oxford to become a physician. History, however, recalls him
as a political theorist, responsible for such works as A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Two
Treatises of Civil Government (1690), Some Considerations of the Consequences of the
Lowering of Interest, Raising the Value of Money (1692), and A Vindication of the
Reasonableness of Christianity (1695).
5

His remembrance of Cromwell's dictatorship and his father's participation in the Civil War led
him to a great respect for the authority of law. Which laws should be observed, however, posed a
question for this intellect. His first great foundational contribution to classical liberalism is his
exploration of rights theory. Searching for the basis and importance of rights led him to an
exposition of natural law. Individual rights, infused with divine origin, gain a priori significance;
laws then can be organized into a hierarchy of sorts. For example, any state law in opposition to
the natural law that recognizes individual rights should not be obeyed. Conversely, the Christian
nature of these rights denies persons absolute autonomy, as Locke demonstrates in The Second
Treatise
6
:
But though this be a State of Liberty, yet it is not a State of License, though Man in that State
have an uncontroleable [sic] Liberty, to dispose of his Person or Possessions, yet he has not
Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler
use, than its bare Preservation calls for it.
Locke's second contribution is his view of humanity. Beginning his political analysis in the
theoretical state of nature, Locke proposes that people coexisted in relative peace. Acquiring

5
L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, in Hobhouse: Liberalism and Other Writings, James Meadowcroft, editor, Cambridge
University Press, 1994, ISBN 978-0-521-43726-4
6
William J. Novak, ["The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's
'Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America'"], Law and History Review 24, no. 1 (2006).

property by mixing labor with resources, they found few obstacles save the inconvenience of
being their own judges in cases ideally wanting impartiality. This implies that humanity is
generally good and capable of coexistence in liberty, an assertion opposing Thomas Hobbes'
earlier view and later opinions as well that hold humans are fallen and unable to achieve
harmony or peace. Thirdly, Locke provides the principle that political sovereignty comes only
from the consent of the governed.
7
Following this point to its conclusion, Locke admits that a
government's breach of the contract between the state and the citizens (in which they agree to be
under its authority) gives the people the right of revolution.
Perhaps most importantly, Locke perceives personal liberty as dependent upon private property.
This property must be secure under the rule of law, else those without could manipulate a system
to acquire from those who possessed. His definition of property hinges on the addition of
personal labor, thus making ownership an intimate act of creation. He extends this definition to
include religious beliefs, political ideas, and, as previously mentioned, one's self to an almost
absolute degree.
Locke's contributions truly fathered a political philosophy that would spread and evolve for
centuries. His descendants affirmed his justifications for inalienable rights and yet struggled with
the unresolved tensions between divine natural law and the fallible humanity that must interpret
it.
The Scottish Enlightenment (1714-1817)
One decade after the death of John Locke, Bernard Mandeville ushered in the era of the Scottish
Enlightenment with his 1714 publication of Enquiry Into The Origin of Moral Virtue, or The
Fable of the Bees. Mandeville's rhyme, by using an extended analogy between humanity and
bees, asserts that all individuals act on their self-interest.
8
Its denial of conventional morality as
primary personal motivation for action and its slogan "private vices, publick virtues" made it a
very controversial publication. Its wide publicity, however, set the stage for Adam Smith, Adam
Ferguson, David Hume, and Henry Homes (Lord Kames) to form a classical liberal movement.

7
Gray, John. Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995 ISBN 0-8166-2800-9
8
Hamowy, Ronald, ed. (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Cato
Institute. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.

The Scottish Enlightenment offered a moral philosophy, or at least methodology, and an
economic answer to the mercantilism which gripped Europe. The works and thoughts of its
largest figure Adam Smith serve as a representative of both of these facets.
Although his name is largely associated with economics, Smith was the Chair of Moral
Philosophy at the University of Glasgow. His 1759 work The Theory of Moral Sentiments
explores the origins of moral approval or disapproval in the effort to judge what is necessary for
orderly social existence
9
. He admits that individuals are necessarily pulled toward interaction by
interest in others and desire for their approval, yet they also care deeply about themselves.
Smith makes no clear division between his moral studies and his economic beliefs, instead
allowing one to fuel the other. He recognizes that self-interest motivates all individuals, yet he
sees a natural manner in which this could serve everyone's needs. He explains this in An Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776):
Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me what I want, and
you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner
that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need
of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our
dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest
10
.
In the atmosphere of free domestic and international trade, Smith argues, a division of labor
leads to prosperity. He focuses on describing this division and the market processes that allow
and enhance it. While doing so he discredits the ideas of mercantilism that bewitched Europe,
such as the belief that hoarding specie made a nation wealthy. In critiquing this widely held
perspective, Smith joined the French Physiocrats (to one of whom, Francois Quesnay, he
dedicated Wealth of Nations). He also articulates the theory of absolute advantage, stating that
the country with the lowest production costs for a given product will produce that good; the
stepson of the Scottish Enlightenment, David Ricardo, would later alter and refine this point. His
On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation of 1817 marks the end of this movement.

9
Richardson, James L. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, 2001 ISBN 1-55587-939-X
10
Turner, Michael J. British Politics in an Age of Reform. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press, 1999 ISBN
0-7190-5186-X, 9780719051869

Smith also produced Essays on Philosophical Subjects in 1795. By drawing on historical
examples and observable subjects, Smith and his colleagues promoted an empirical methodology
for studying human behavior. They also recognized that the characteristics of such behavior
existed without human knowledge. Smith's famous "Invisible Hand" description of the market
refers to such patterns' lack of human orchestration. Their united attack on mercantilism links the
members of the Scottish Enlightenment with a concurrent movement across the English
Channel.
11

11
http://www.la.fnst-freiheit.org/webcom/show_page.php/_c-1032/_nr-5/i.html

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
The Bill of Rights proclaims that individuals have "rights." But what does it mean to have a
right? Are some rights fundamentally different from others? In the classical liberal tradition,
rights have several characteristics, including the following:
Rights Are Relational
Rights pertain to the moral responsibilities that people have to one another. In particular, they
refer to a zone of sovereignty within which individuals are entitled to make choices without
interference by others. In this way, rights serve as moral side-constraints on the actions of other
people. In a world consisting of only one individual, or in which people never interacted, rights
would not exist in the sense that there would be no one to claim a right against and no one who
could interfere with the exercise of any individual's rights. Rights exist because people do
interact in pursuit of their own interests. Rights are also relational in another sense: They limit
the morally permissible actions government may take to interfere with the lives of individuals
who are governed.
Rights Imply Obligations
Rights sanction morally allowable actions. In the process, they create obligations for other
people to refrain from preventing those actions. To say that "Joe has the right to do X" implies
all other people have an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X. For example, to say "Joe
has a right to build a swing set in his backyard" implies that other people are obliged not to
interfere with Joe's construction of the swing set.


Fundamental Rights Imply Negative Obligations
Joe's right to build a swing set obligates others to stay out of the way. It does not obligate others
to help Joe by furnishing labor, materials, etc. So, Joes' right creates negative obligations for
others, not positive ones. All fundamental rights imply negative obligations in this way.
For example, the right to free speech implies a (negative) obligation on the part of others not to
interfere with your speaking. It does not create the (positive) obligation to provide you with a
platform, a microphone and an audience. The right to freedom of the press implies a (negative)
obligation for others not to interfere with your publishing. It does not create the (positive)
obligation to provide you with newsprint, ink and a printing press. The right to freedom of
assembly creates the (negative) obligation for others not to interfere with your association with
others. It does not create the (positive) obligation to furnish you with an assembly hall.

From primary rights (e.g., the rights to life, liberty and property) flow derivative
rights
These are new obligations that arise as people exercise their primary rights. Virtually all rights
created through trade, exchange or contract are derivative. For instance, Joe owns a motorcycle
and agrees to let Tom rent it for a period of time. Joe has a right to expect to get his motorcycle
back along with the agreed upon rental fee. Joe's rights entail positive obligations on the part of
Tom.
Rights are Compossible
Can rights conflict? In the classical liberal conception, a conflict of rights implies a
contradiction. Consider two claims:
1. Joe has the right to do X.
2. Tom has the right to interfere with Joe's doing X.
The first sentence implies that Tom has an obligation not to interfere with Joe's doing X, whereas
the second sentence implies that he has no such obligation. Hence, there is a contradiction.

In order to be logically consistent, therefore, rights cannot conflict; which is to say, they must be
compossible. Compossiblility means that each person's rights are compatible with everyone else
having the same rights. This is the feature behind the adage "Your right to act ends at my nose,"
and vice versa. Take the claim that each person has a right to liberty. Compossibility implies that
when any one person is exercising her liberty she is not violating other peoples' right to liberty.
This does not mean that people cannot compete to achieve mutually exclusive goals. It does
mean that the competition must be in the context of rights. Put differently, there may be conflicts
among people (e.g., they may be pursuing conflicting goals) but there cannot be conflicts of
rights. Also, the statement that rights are compossible does not imply that there cannot be
arguments and disputes about what those rights are (which is why we have courts of law). But
the presumption of a legal hearing is that even though the disputants may disagree, there are
objective, non-contradictory rights for the court to discover.
Fundamental Rights are Inalienable
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that basic rights are inalienable.
This means they cannot be alienated from the individual who holds the rights. They cannot be
given away or taken away. They cannot be bought, sold or traded. They can be violated,
however.
Joe can give away his swing set or sell it or trade it for some other asset. Joe can also buy, sell,
trade or donate other pieces of property. But he cannot give away, sell or trade away his right to
property as such. Individuals, through consent or contract, may limit their liberty to take specific
acts (e.g., under the terms of a contract); but they may not give up their right to liberty as such.
Fundamental Rights Do Not Come from Government
Not only do rights not get their legitimacy from government, but as the Declaration of
Independence so eloquently states it's the other way around. Government gets its legitimacy
from the existence of rights. In the view of Locke, Jefferson and others, rational, moral people
form governments for the express purpose of protecting rights. In the Second Treatise on
Government, Locke argued that legitimate governments are, in fact, instituted to facilitate the
more effective protection or enforcement of these rights, and may not abrogate an individual's

natural rights. In natural rights theories, legitimate governments are created by consent, but
fundamental rights are not grounded in consent.
Substantive Rights vs. Procedural Rights
Some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are "substantive" rights. Others are
"procedural." The founding fathers were clearly very concerned with both. The distinction is as
follows. Legitimate governments are created to protect substantive rights. But in carrying out this
task, the government is required to adhere to certain procedures, and these requirements create
procedural rights. For example, the Constitution specifies that certain government officials must
be elected. This implies that citizens have a (procedural) right to vote.
Furthermore, in order to protect rights and to adjudicate disputes about rights, the government
must exercise certain police powers. In our system, certain procedural safeguards were built into
the Constitution specifying how the government must act in exercising these powers. For
instance, the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant before arresting a person or
seizing his property. In addition, for serious crimes it requires the government to provide the
accused with a speedy, public trial before an impartial jury, the ability to confront witnesses and
to compel testimony. All these rights are procedural rights.

PROCEDURAL RIGHTS
As noted, the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the rights that flow from all the rules of
evidence that courts enforce these are examples of procedural rights. Procedural rights have at
least four characteristics of interest:
They are less fundamental than substantive rights. Indeed, the reason for establishing procedural
rights is to protect substantive rights.
They are conventional. Whether the legislature has one house or two, whether we vote once a
year or once every six months, whether we have three branches of government or four or five
all these are decisions to be made. And one decision is not necessarily superior to any other.

Despite the fact that these rights are conventional, many of them are nonetheless constitutional.
The Founders did not want them to be easily changed.
They imply positive obligations. Unlike fundamental substantive rights (which imply only
negative obligations), procedural rights imply positive obligations. For example, the right to vote
obligates others (government officials) to provide a polling booth, set aside a day for voting,
print up ballots, etc. The right to a trial by jury obligates others (government officials) to
empanel jurors, provide a judge, make a court house available, etc.
They are the result of a balancing of interests. Because procedural rights create positive
obligations, arguably, they cannot be secured without the exercise of force or the threat of force.
Governments are thus empowered to make people do things which they might otherwise not do
in order to secure such rights (including, for example, collecting taxes from unwilling taxpayers).
For this reason, the securing of procedural rights requires a delicate balancing between the value
of the substantive rights they are designed to protect and the danger of violating these rights in
the very act of attempting to protect them.
Substantive Rights versus Police Powers of the State
In order to prevent crime, catch and punish criminals, settle disputes and carry out other duties
necessary to protect rights, every government will necessarily exercise police powers powers
that are generally denied to ordinary citizens. Among the questions these powers raise, here are
three important ones:
If one individual violates another's rights (say, by committing a crime) does the violator forfeit
his rights to life, liberty, etc.?
If the government compels testimony, subpoenas records, secures property, etc., from people
who are subsequently shown to be completely innocent of any crime, is government violating the
rights of the innocent?
If the answer to the preceding question is "not always," where is the boundary to be drawn
beyond which the legitimate exercise of police powers becomes a violation of individual rights?

In the classical liberal world, people are free to pursue their own interests so long as they do not
violate the rights of others. They are free to trade with others or not to trade. They are free to
associate with others or not to associate. Since fundamental, substantive rights create negative
obligations, one respects another's rights by not interfering with the exercise of those rights.
Interference generally consists of force, the threat of force or fraud (which is interpreted to be an
indirect form of force). The classical liberal world, therefore, is a peaceful world. All interactions
are voluntary. A world in which all rights are respected is a world without force or fraud.
A potential problem arises when government exercises its police powers in defense
of rights
A classical liberal citizen clearly has the right not to be seized or searched at random. But
suppose a government official suspects the citizen is a thief and that he harbors contraband.
Suppose also, that after a search, seizure and trial, the citizen is proved to be guilty. How can we
describe these government acts using the language of rights?
Under certain circumstances rights are defeasable. That is, they are justifiably set aside. For
instance, people who are imprisoned for committing crimes (i.e., violating the rights of others)
have not lost their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but in order to
punish them for the crimes they committed, their rights are (temporarily) set aside.
A person need not have done wrong, however, to have his or her rights set aside. For instance,
the same reasoning applies to the search and seizure of a person who is later shown to be
innocent. If the search was reasonable and well-founded, it does not count as a violation of the
innocent person's rights. Instead, those rights are suspended or ignored in pursuit of a larger
objective (defending everyone else's rights).
Clearly, a lot hinges on defining what is "reasonable." Defined too broadly, the police powers of
the state threaten every substantive right of every citizen. To ensure that these powers are
narrowly circumscribed, procedural rights are established and enshrined in the Constitution.
These procedural rights are important not only to drug dealers and mafia capos (who use them to
maximum advantage). They are important to every citizen in the exercise of every right.


Rights versus Needs
To appreciate the classical liberal concept of individual rights, it is as important to understand
what is being rejected as it is to understand what is being asserted. To say that individuals have
the right to pursue their own happiness implies that they are not obliged to pursue the happiness
of others. Put differently, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness implies that people
are not obligated to serve the needs, concerns, wishes and wants of others. This doesn't mean that
everyone has to be selfish. It does imply that everyone has a right to be selfish.
In the classical liberal world, need is not a claim. That is, the needs, wishes, wants, feelings and
desires of others are not a claim against your mind, body or property. At the time the Declaration
of Independence was written, this meant that the American colonists had the right to pursue their
own interests, independent of the needs of King George and the British Empire. In time, the
concept was broadened affirming each individual's right to pursue his or her own interest,
despite the existence of unmet needs somewhere on the planet or even next door.
The idea that need is not a claim applies to procedural rights as well as substantive rights. Tom
may feel safer if all suspicious-looking people are routinely seized and searched. But in the
world of classical liberalism, Tom's need to feel safe is not a justification for initiating force
against all suspicious-looking people.


CONCLUSION

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United
States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of
Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist
Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of
government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical
liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
12

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements
of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the
case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only
had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John
Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from
government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them.
The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role
of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make
any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties
13
.
On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between
19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties
and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any
fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages
they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the
economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

12
Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, New York: Aspen Law & Business, 1998.
13
Hugo M. Mialon and Paul H. Rubin, "An Economic Analysis of the Conflict Between the Patriot Act and Civil
Liberty," NCPA's Debate Central Web site, online at http://www.debate-central.org/topics /2005/LINKS/
economic.html

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century
liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal
support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant 20th
century ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had
far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights.
14

14
John C. Goodman, "An Economic Theory of the Evolution of Common Law," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 7, 1978,
page 393.

BIBLIOGRAPHY& WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. M. O. Dickerson et al., An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual
Approach (2009) p. 129

2. Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Routledge, 2010, ISBN 978-
0-415-56789-3

3. George Miller. On Fairness and Efficiency. The Policy Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1-86134-
221-8 p.344

4. L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, in Hobhouse: Liberalism and Other Writings, James
Meadowcroft, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 978-0-521-43726-4

5. William J. Novak, ["The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A
Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of
Liberal America'"], Law and History Review 24, no. 1 (2006).

6. Gray, John. Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995 ISBN 0-8166-
2800-9

7. Hamowy, Ronald, ed. (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151.
OCLC 750831024.

8. Richardson, James L. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001 ISBN 1-55587-939-X

Classical Liberalism: John Locke's Influence During the Enlightenment

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Classical Liberalism: John Locke's Influence During the Enlightenment

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Classical Liberalism

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY Page 1

Potrebbero piacerti anche