HC1
Palmer – Classical liberalism and civil society: definitions, history, and relations
Classical liberalism has been so successful in so many ways that it is often taken for granted.
Goal: the authors offers a defense of the classical liberal conception of civil society , followed by
several suggestions for alternative classical liberal approaches to such central problems as
distributive justice, corporate (or group) rights, and the relationship between liberalism, democracy,
and popular consent.
Civil society: that community that delegates authority to government, and is the body within which
ultimate authority resides.
Classical liberals typically use the term “civil society” to refer to anything BUT government:
business, schools, clubs, unions, media, churches, charities, libraries, and any other
nongovernmental forms of organization through which a community’s members relate to
each other
Some refer to it as “associational life”, which is then distinguished from “the state” and “the
economy”
The “civil” in civil society does not distinguish the civil parts of a society from the uncivil
parts, but civil societies from uncivil societies
Origins of civil society
Early cities of Europe. They were built on historically well documented social contracts
“The most indispensable was personal liberty. Without liberty, that is to say, without the
power to come and go, to do business, to sell goods, a power not enjoyed by serfdom, trade
was impossible”
Peace and personal security were central values
Another central part was toleration of nonviolent beliefs and behaviors
The legal relations among the inhabitants of such places were normally governed by
contract, rather than status: they were the essential “social order in which all these relations
arise from the free agreement of individuals”
The unique characteristics of the order of civil society include: individual liberty, peace, and
equality before the law
Civil society rests on a legal foundation of fundamental equality and liberty
According to Locke, the appropriate relationship between civil society and government is
that of principal and agent
Civil society refers first and foremost to a kind of legal relationship among persons.
Fundamental rights – clustered around property in one’s person – are equal for all
Civil society needs a legal foundation to function properly
Many forms of associations within civil society must conform to the rule of law, but within
the law infinite variety is possible
Civil society and motivation
A civil society does not only have a legal order, it also has a kind of partial and selfish
motivation
Some call it a rights-based society of solitariness and selfishness
Civil society is typically identified as that sector of society “between the state and market”
or as a “third sector”
However, these definitions have at least two serious deficits:
, o They represent a break from the long tradition of understanding civil society,
generating confusion rather than illumination
o To the extent that they identify the state with coercive power and the market with
self-interest, they divide up the various possible forms of interaction in terms of
nonexclusive categories
Defining civil society
Civil society is that kind of human interaction made possible by equality of rights that are
protected by institutions/organizations that exercise delegated, enumerated, and thus
limited powers, such that those members of civil society not tied to one another by kinship,
friendship, love, faith, or even geographical proximity can nonetheless interact in a “civil”
manner
Civil society includes religious orders, business enterprises, labour associations, and the
clubs, associations, neighbourhood groups, bowling leagues, etc.
No one of these associations, and certainly not the state, need exhaust the personalities of
the members of civil society
By resigning from any of these associations one does not become a traitor to the entire civil
society.
Choice / free will
In civil society, one can form attachment of one’s own choosing
Liberty in the enjoyment of one’s “civil rights”
Distributive justice
The principal difference between the institutions of civil society and the institutions of
government is that the latter are inherently endowed with coercive powers
State actors claim legitimacy for their acts when they do use violence against people. They
aspire to a monopoly over violence
Democratic central government: civil society organized for common action. It is civil society
when it picks up its law code and straps on its pistol and, legitimized and authorized by its
popular mandate, becomes the sovereign
Only ‘just’ powers may be delegated to the government: since individuals do not have the
right to expropriate the possessions of others, enslave others, or threaten others with bodily
harm, then government cannot have a right to nationalize property, conscript soldiers or
hospital orderlies, or enforce victimless crime laws. Government’s legitimate powers are
necessarily limited to those powers and only those powers that the people can and to
delegate to it
Groups
Classical liberals have typically emphasized the distinction between private and public
realms
However, a variety of political theorists have insisted, that the appropriate bearers of rights
may not be individuals, but groups
Those groups – typically ascriptive, rather than voluntary, associations – may have rights
over the individuals that make them up, or rights to special treatment by the wider
community, or some combination of these
Such group rights may be necessary to undergird the cultural infrastructure that alone can
make individual autonomy possible
Modern welfare-state liberals have tended more and more toward endorsing an “interest-
theory” of rights, in which the interests of persons are held to be the grounds for holding
others under duties
, Those rights have a dynamic character – they change in ways that are unknown and even
unknowable to the holders of rights and obligations
Since interests conflict, rights will conflict under the increasingly dominant modern “liberal”
approach. That is a very serious problem, cause if two persons both have rights that clash,
then the determination of which of them should be allowed to exercise the right must be
made on the ground of something other than right.
Thus, the statements of rights and interests are not logically contradictory; only the
fulfilment of the duties they enjoin is impossible
Individuals have many interests that are best served by being members of groups. Groups,
too, may have interests. But neither consideration justifies eliminating the principle that all
are equal before the law and substituting for this one principle – one of the greatest
accomplishes of civilization – a variety of regimes of differential rights
The pursuit of both individual and group interests should be undertaken solely through
voluntary associations within the confines of a system of equal fundamental individual rights
Most modern states recognize a right of exit from the territory of state, but the cost of exit
from the state are extremely high, for one must then also exit from ALL of one’s other
associations in civil society
In contrast, exit from any particular association of civil society does not normally mean exit
from all associations
“Personal autonomy”
Conclusion
In general, what should determine the appropriate relations among individuals, groups and
the state is CONSENT: individuals consent to form voluntary associations, on the basis of
common interests; those voluntary associations interact with other associations and with
individuals on the basiss of mutual consent; and governments derive “their just powers from
the Consent of the Governed”, in the words of the American Declaration of Independence
Individuals may consent to form voluntary groups through which to advance their common
interests. In consenting to pool their assets, they may also create fictive persons (e.g.
corporations) which may have legal relations with individuals, other corporations, and
states. They may even be bearers of legal responsibility and may assume collective
responsibility on behalf of their members.
The liberty of the individual human being is the highest political end. It is not the end or goal
of life itself, but the condition that makes the ends of life most likely to be attained.
Michael Walzer – The civil society argument
The author argues that although we inhabit civil societies, we do not at this moment live
comfortably in any of them. Nor is it possible to imagine a way to ‘choose’ among them, as if we are
one day destined to find the best social formation.
Civil society: “the space of uncoerced human association and also the set of relational networks –
formed for the sake of family, faith, interest and ideology – that fill this space”
History
Central and Eastern Europe: flourished within a highly restricted version of civil society, and
the first task of the new democracies created by the dissidents was to rebuild the networks:
unions, churches, political parties etc.
Western Europe: has lived in civil society for many years without knowing it
Change
