Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Introduction
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Why All Welfare States (Including Laissez-Faire Ones) Are Unreasonable
- Measuring Opportunity: Toward a Contractarian Measure of Individual Interest
- Deontic Restrictions Are Not Agent-Relative Restrictions
- Why Even Egalitarians Should Favor Market Health Insurance
- Affirmative Action and the Demands of Justice
- The Dual Role of Property Rights in Protecting Broadcast Speech
- Regulation of Foods and Drugs and Libertarian Ideals: Perspectives of a Fellow-Traveler
- Profit: The Concept and Its Moral Features
- Natural Property Rights: Where They Fail
- Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class
- Libertarianism as if (the Other 99 Percent of) People Mattered
- On the Failure of Libertarianism to Capture the Popular Imagination
- Imitations of Libertarian Thought
- Index
Why All Welfare States (Including Laissez-Faire Ones) Are Unreasonable
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 January 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Introduction
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Why All Welfare States (Including Laissez-Faire Ones) Are Unreasonable
- Measuring Opportunity: Toward a Contractarian Measure of Individual Interest
- Deontic Restrictions Are Not Agent-Relative Restrictions
- Why Even Egalitarians Should Favor Market Health Insurance
- Affirmative Action and the Demands of Justice
- The Dual Role of Property Rights in Protecting Broadcast Speech
- Regulation of Foods and Drugs and Libertarian Ideals: Perspectives of a Fellow-Traveler
- Profit: The Concept and Its Moral Features
- Natural Property Rights: Where They Fail
- Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class
- Libertarianism as if (the Other 99 Percent of) People Mattered
- On the Failure of Libertarianism to Capture the Popular Imagination
- Imitations of Libertarian Thought
- Index
Summary
THE WELFARE STATE VERSUS THE LIBERAL RECHTSTAAT
Liberal political theory is all too familiar with the divide between classical and welfare-state liberals. Classical liberals, as we all know, insist on the importance of small government, negative liberty, and private property. Welfare-state liberals, on the other hand, although they too stress civil rights, tend to be sympathetic to “positive liberty,” are for a much more expansive government, and are often ambivalent about private property. Although I do not go so far as to entirely deny the usefulness of this familiar distinction, I think in many ways it is misleading. In an important sense, most free-market liberals are also “welfare-state” liberals. I say this because the overwhelming number of liberals, of both the pro-market and the pro-government variety, entertain a welfarist conception of political economy. On this dominant welfarist view, the ultimate justification of the politico-economic order is that it promotes human welfare. Traditional “welfare-state liberals” such as Robert E. Goodin manifestly adopt this welfarist conception. But it is certainly not only interventionists such as Goodin who insist that advancing welfare is the overriding goal of normative political economy. J. R. McCulloch, one of the great nineteenthcentury laissez-faire political economists, was adamant that “freedom is not, as some appear to think, the end of government: the advancement of public prosperity and happiness is its end.”
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Problems of Market Liberalism , pp. 1 - 33Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1998