# Classical liberalism arose in an environment that no longer exists ### Religion and Collectivism Classical liberalism arose in an environment where collectivism and religion were the default .So in a sense it’s pushing hard against a force that’s no longer there. Perhaps more importantly, I suspect that it assumes that there is a collectivist institution or urge that acts as the second layer of an evolutionary system to keep raw individualism in check. [[Institutions are the second level of a group selection evolutionary system]]. Some sense of higher purpose, morality, belief, and divinity. The direct evidence for this is that the US constitution gives a head-nod to God while enshrining individual liberties. [[John Stewart Mills]] talks about people being able to worship God however they want. “Which God” or “is there a God?” Isn’t even a question. The indirect evidence is just the historical context: religious faith pervaded 18th century life in a way that is almost inconceivable now. Sure ,many of the elites believed in a clockmaker God, but the idea that there was *no* God was inconceivable (or at least a [[Load Bearing Fiction]].) An uncomfortable upshot is that anarcho-capitalist systems might work in a Christian (or Abrahamic God or single-belief-system) dominated world, but without those higher level rules above individuals, it would fail. In this light, the crypto people want immutable algorithms to provide these higher-level institutions. ### Complex Technologies When classical liberalism was created and right up through the 20th century, most technology require much coordination. Any technology could be held in a single person’s head and could be built into a useful thing with the resources available to a single wealthy individual.[^1] Canals and railroads didn’t need to be interoperable to work, and it was possible to do the R&D to get the steam engine as technology to a profit-generating point with only individual funds. The expensive part was building out the infrastructure. Starting at the beginning of the 20th century, people started creating more and more social and mechanical technologies that were more than a single mind could coordinate or a single pocket could finance to the point of commercial viability. In short-many more technologies required coordination from larger groups of people. Electric grids, cross-country airplane networks, The Internet, jet engines, plastics, semiconductors, etc. etc. Many of these technologies require new forms of coordination that rub up against the principles of classical liberalism. Some of the technologies require aggregation of resources that wouldn’t happen unless they were done by the state, effectively forcing people to pay for them without their explicit agreement. Some of the technologies involve impinging on property in ways Locke could barely imagine - like producing excessive noise, chemical pollutants, flying over property or digging under it. Some of the technologies require near-monopolies to be effective. Some technologies require continuous swaths of land or collective use. - [[Many modern technologies benefit from interoperability]] - [[Private property can lead to a tragedy of the anti commons]] ### Physical Frontiers/Exit Options Classical liberalism has always coexisted with a world with an extremely accessible physical frontier. A classic liberal could always (realistically) make the argument that if someone could vote with their feet. And while life on the frontier was hard, it wasn’t actually that much worse than the average life for a non-elite in most of the world. This frontier was actually a place ungoverned by mortal law for all intents and purposes. People could go out there and do whatever experiments they wanted - technological or social. In the middle of the 20th century the gap between life on anything that could be considered the frontier and the average existence even of non-elites widened while the things that could be considered the frontier all but disappeared. Both of these effects stemmed from technology. Technology enabled people to move basically anywhere with ease and for governments to enforce their claims there. At the same time, electricity, indoor plumbing, communication networks, and consumer goods made the advantages of being hooked into infrastructure skyrocket. In a way, classical liberalism (which I’m using loosely as being equivalent to naked individualism and sovereign individuality) is a [[Suitcase Handle Word]]. The arguments for it do not exist truly context free, and the context is different now. ### The Flavor of Change Today, people generally agree that on net, change is good. The sticking point is about *which* changes are good and which are not. New career opportunities pop up, self improvement, we can meet so many new people, social mobility, and of course, continuously improving technology. In the 16th century, this was absolutely not the case. For most people and for most part, change came in the form of someone conquering the land you lived on, burning down your village, or increasing the tax rate. Change as a mostly negative thing had started to change by the 18th century but we know that Adam Smith did not realize he was living at the beginning of the industrial revolution. While my conviction about it is weak, I’m pretty sure that on net change in the 18th century resembled change in the 16th century more than it resembled change in the 21st century. In large part this shift was because [[Technology has enabled progress to be a net positive]]. The fact that change has changed from when classical liberalism was created is relevant because [[Classical Liberalism defaults towards gridlock]], which is preferable in a world where most change is bad but perhaps less so in a world where most change is good. ### State Power Things states could not do when classical liberalism was created: - Unilaterally wipe out humanity - Print their own money without consequences (Is it possible that [[Infinite state debt has made the world less dynamic]]?) - Track everyone within their borders These changes mean that there were some implicit assumptions built in to the liberal bargain that no longer hold. [[The liberal bargain is that the role of the state is to enforce the rights of individuals]] ### Related - [[Present day resembles the beginning of the reformation more than the fall of the roman empire]] - [[Is it possible to have a collectivist government built on top of inalienable individual rights?]] - [[Separation of Church and State should take on new meaning in the 21st century]] - [[We should treat space exploration the same way people in the 13th century treated building cathedrals]] - [[Post-liberal synthesis]] - [[Classical Liberalism defaults towards gridlock]] [^1]: Obviously there are some key exceptions like ships.