In the early days of my teaching career, I received a nugget of wisdom from David Henderson: to be transparent about my economic beliefs. At the start of each class, as well as during various discussions, I make it a point to identify myself as a classical liberal—a proponent of free-market economics who maintains that individuals, not governments, are better equipped to navigate the complexities of social interactions and challenges. While I don’t dismiss the possibility of government intervention, I start with a strong bias in favor of liberty that must be convincingly challenged to justify any state action. The law should serve to enhance freedom, not curtail it.
This guidance has proven invaluable in my teaching. It often sparks dialogues outside the classroom, particularly with students who may hold differing philosophical views. On our picturesque campus, adorned with magnificent live oaks, I often conduct office hours outdoors. This setting has led to numerous enriching discussions in the dappled sunlight. Some students lean towards liberal ideologies; others, while not aligned with my views, are curious about the philosophy or eager to present counterarguments. Regardless of their stance, I believe everyone leaves these conversations a little wiser—or at least, I do.
Recently, a student posed an intriguing question: why do I identify as a liberal? This inquiry has prompted me to reflect deeply on my evolving rationale. Certainly, my liberalism is grounded in empirical evidence. Liberalism has fostered remarkable human progress, significantly mitigating true poverty in nations that embrace it. Countries that embody liberal values tend to be more tolerant, peaceful, affluent, healthy, creative, and content. Numerous books document these facts. For a more compelling narrative, I suggest The Rise of the Cajun Mariners: The Race for Big Oil by Woody Falgoux, which chronicles the extraordinary journey of Cajun boaters who, starting from nothing, took risks and emerged as “oil boat barons”—a saga only possible within a liberal market framework. As Thomas Sowell aptly noted, “I do not have faith in the market; I have evidence about the market.”
If you had asked me two decades ago, when I was just beginning my foray into economics, why I leaned liberal, I would have relied solely on empirical evidence. However, my interactions with a range of liberal thinkers throughout history, such as Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, John Miller, A.V. Dicey, F.A. Hayek, and James M. Buchanan, alongside contemporary voices like Don Boudreaux, David Henderson, Pierre Lemieux, and Russ Roberts, have deepened my understanding of “liberalism” and “human flourishing.”
Over the years, my perspective has shifted; I now find my reasoning less anchored in empirical outcomes. Even if liberalism didn’t yield better material conditions, I would still champion it. James Buchanan encapsulated this sentiment in his essay “Natural and Artifactual Man,” found in Volume 1 of The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan:
Man wants liberty to become the man he wants to become. He does so precisely because he does not know what man he will want to become in time. Let us remove once and for all the instrumental defense of liberty, the only one that can possibly be derived directly from orthodox economic analysis. Man does not want liberty in order to maximize his utility, or that of society of which he is a part. He wants liberty to become the man he wants to become. (pg 259, emphasis in original.)
Liberalism empowers individuals to discover and develop the best versions of themselves, whatever that may entail. Will some people stumble along the way? Certainly. Is that a problem? Not at all. Will a few misuse their freedoms at the expense of others? Undoubtedly. That’s precisely where a liberal government must step in—to rectify injustices. To me, the ability to seek and live one’s best life, as long as it doesn’t harm others, is a beautiful aspect of liberty.
Liberalism is fundamentally a social philosophy. It nurtures social behavior by promoting peace. In turn, this fosters societal cohesion in ways that collectivist ideologies, which often overlook individual significance, cannot. It cultivates human flourishing in multifaceted ways. And this is why I proudly identify as a classical liberal.
Live oaks in the quad at Nicholls State, photo by the author.
[1] In this post, I use “liberal” and “classical liberal” interchangeably; they signify the same ideology. Here, “liberal” does not refer to the American left or the Democratic Party.
[2] The lists of thinkers mentioned are not exhaustive. I have been fortunate to engage with many insightful individuals, and the absence of certain names here is not meant to diminish their influence.
As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.
