Not exact matches
But insofar as you do think there are differences between rightly understood Locke and the contemporary libertarian or classic
liberal reading of natural rights applied to
economic issues, perhaps you will wind up defending at least part of my
theory.
The right embraces a market orthodoxy that places the choosing, autonomous individual at the center of its
economic theory and accepts the larger
liberal frame in which the only alternative to this free - market, individualist orthodoxy is statism and collectivism.
Adam Smith, the founder of classical
liberal economic theory, was also deeply concerned with morality.
In 1826 he wrote on the subject of
liberal economic theories: «These
theories as they are practised have contributed to the growth of material wealth, but have diminished overall satisfaction for the individual;... they tend to render the rich richer and the poor, poorer, more dependent and more miserable.»
The collectivist view encourages the ruthlessness of which Heilbroner wrote,
liberal society is somewhat restrained by its commitment to individuals, but it has paid a high price for its individualist
economic theories.
Let's first give a very brief sketch of some of the main preoccupations of post-war
liberal economic theory, which sought to understand the actual behaviour of
economic agents under conditions of scarcity through the creation of predictive models.
Like
economic society in
liberal economic,
theory Rawls»
theory reasons from individuals - to - community and through a relatively basic method of consenual choice, utilizing transparant and universally applicable rules of individual rationality.
(The, at first glance, irrational faith of
liberals in growth, so characteristic of all our present political and
economic theories, depends on this notion.)