is liberalism?
And, if it is so good, as the liberals say, then why has it not made far more
rapid progress?

Whether pristine liberals are conservatives depends
only on how much liberty there is in the current status quo. Presumably, the T.H. Green-like neo-liberals from the 1870s,
and the Labourites too, are conservatives today. As liberty has been ebbing
since 1860, today’s liberals will look radical, or maybe reactionary as they
want to revive liberty that many might feel is to try to revive the past but
the aim is liberty not trying to revive the past which is never likely to be an
aim of anyone and would be futile if ever it was. Liberals today simply want
more social liberty, not only the liberty lost since 1860 but much more still.
Indeed, many liberals want to get rid of the state altogether. Whenever they
do, then they will become conservatives. Whether we are conservatives depends
on what we want to conserve.

Liberalism is clearly part, some even think the
whole, of basic morality, so there is a
sense that nearly everyone the last 3000 years, or more, were partly pristine
liberal, and had the basic idea that they should not impose on others without
consent, but they do not vie this idea with many other ideas that rival it, or
even see that many of those ideas are in competition, if not logically clash, so
most people do not see a need to vie our ideas for overall coherence, that many
people today might even think is an odd, or an extreme thing to do, if we are
not philosophers, and in this case, where we would have an extreme result of suggested
anarcho-liberalism, or, at least, that we cut back the state about as much as
we can, for many of the rival values held in current common sense today are not
compatible with social liberty, or even with basic morals, but indeed they clash
with morals. They are allowed only by tacit or unwitting licence or even with quite
explicit privilege. This privilege is often thought to be realistic if not quite

The LA members basically do vie their ideas, and
they throw out statism as a result, as it is based on this special licence and
privilege e.g. to kill and plunder in war. The LA wants to get all people to do

Pristine liberalism is just the quest for social
liberty, which is just the ideally civilised respect we all ought to have for
the liberty of all rather than just our own individual liberty, that we tend to
have naturally. This is basically just respect for all persons. I think we do
know the basic rules best here whenever boy meets girl, for that is where the
proper way we should treat others has received most attention in literature and
song over the last few thousand years.

We all like our own liberty, to be free to do what
we want to, and we all, more or less, tacitly know this, so being too bossy
when boy meets girl will rarely be used by either side during courtship. Savage
individual liberty is doing what you want regardless, but social liberty additionally
incorporates a civilised respect for the liberty of all others.

If ever bossiness emerges, from one side or the other, when boy
meets girl, later on, well after the honeymoon period in marriage, say, then it
will usually be seen as a fault, though the side at fault might not openly
admit to it, even when it is realised. We are often reluctant to admit that we
are at fault. The husband who attempts to dominate too much may well admit it
as a fault as may well the wife who nags too much after a time. Tolerance is needed and this tolerance of others,
especially of their liberty, is pristine liberalism; tolerance is a candidate
for the top liberal idea. But an important liberty is that for either side to reject
the other person when we no longer want to tolerate that person, or to never to
begin a relationship at all in the first place. All this is social liberty,
both sides being free.

So as we all accept the liberal idea as part of our basic
universal morals then a pristine liberal movement should be like going
downhill, as the people are all partly liberal already. It is in our basic
morals. Moreover the liberal idea is not only part of basic morality but is
haply the leading, or top, value in morality.
Social liberalism is merely showing consideration for the liberty or
persons of others. Why, then, have the liberals not, long since, won out? And then
why did it decline after 1860, [oddly, by evolving into almost its opposite of
statist neo-liberalism by extending the political power of the state] instead
of continuing with the steady progress with increasing social liberty up till
that time? Those are two interesting
questions. I will attempt to give the core answers to both below; but I suppose
a whole book might be written on either or both.

The answers to both have two aspects, first of
desirability and second of practicality. On desirability, liberalism may be the
top idea, but is it all that we want we want? Today, most people would say not
but the liberals tend to say it is.

The main answer to the first of the lack of speedy
progress has already been given: most people do seriously not vie
or mesh their ideas explicitly for consistency and coherence; they are rarely
energetic philosophers, but they do tacitly and naturally indulge in such thought a bit. But
the reason this explicit vying of ideas needs to be done is because, despite
the liberal idea being the top moral idea and the fact that aware moral ideas
normally trump rival non-moral value memes, or ideas, liberalism has many rivals: indeed he whole political
outlook is full of them. As already said, vying for consistently is seen as
extreme and current common sense holds any extreme to be error. But that is a clear fetish, as many extremes
are welcome by all e.g. extreme good health is just one example.

Most of the rivals to liberalism are old, as is the state
and politics. Tradition and conservativism are strong in any society as they
represent what has survived trial and error. So this gives most people to
settle for a common sense mix of ideas rather than rejecting the ideas that
clash with the liberal idea as the LAers do.

Standing as traditional is almost on par to successful
standing up to reason, as it is often thought to contain quite a bit of actual
testing by reason. This will be the tacit natural thought that most people will
have given whilst being mainly interested in other things that they are doing. What
ideally would be the case would be for most people to look at the main enemy of
social liberty, the state, with their undivided attention to see if it is
beneficial, as current common sense holds or whether it is anti-social as the doctrinaire
or ideological liberals hold to be the case. The liberals say that main result of vying our
ideas explicitly will be to reach liberalism, will be an anti-statist stance
that clashes with the state, which has a long tradition that stands as a
defence. This anti-state conclusion is a bit too radical for most people, at
least at first. They are interested in doing other things.

But even the statists, or politicians, also feel
there is too much apathy in society, or rather people are keen to do other things rather than look on the whole, that
they tend to think neglect being keen on the good things they suppose the state
can do. The local vicar thinks most are not keen enough on religion too. Why is
this? One major reason is that society has long since been based on the
division of labour that tends to train us to mind our own business and we tend
to do this in terms of play as well as work. Only philosophers tend to look at
the wood for even in science they are usually looking at mere trees. This means
that most people are not often interested in other things.

But few people
do vie their ideas anyway. Philosophers do tend to do so, but philosophy has
ever been popular, though we all indulge in doing a bit of it; even if it is
not realised to be such.

So most people settle for not being extreme liberals;
but they, nevertheless, do retain the liberal idea as their top moral value.
Such people accept the common sense idea that the state is basically good, so
the fact that, in politics, or overall state administration, the state employees
can not only do immoral things but that it might even be, given current common
sense realism, their duty to do such
things, as they are due to do so as part of their work for the state, and the
state is accepted as needed and good, is widely accepted as merely being
realistic. That politics clashes with liberalism is seen to be just the
practical limits of liberalism.

Common sense therefore allows different standards
for the state; the state is given license or privilege. Few think it odd that
the fictional spy, James Bond, is licensed to kill, for example, despite
holding that murder for the ordinary person is about the most immoral act that
could be done. The ideological liberal, who does vie his ideas, will think this
distinction very silly, as well as downright immoral. Why privilege the state
or politics? The pristine liberal sees
no reason as to why. But most people today do. They feel it is only practical
to do so. It is practical politics but is it morally right? Is politics itself right?
Pristine liberals tend to think not.

There are many other ideas that liberals oppose that
current common sense, whilst agreeing that the liberal idea is at the top, or
at least very nearly so, nevertheless, thinks the doctrinaire liberal ideology of
the LA is being way too extreme to use this top idea to negate as being
actually immoral. That, it is commonly thought, is to be so extreme that it is
almost descending into being mad.

This is the sort of thinking, that most people hold
today, is what helps to keep the pristine liberal movement at bay as being
wildly extreme and so slows its progress; or even fosters opposition to it. The
state is thought to be highly desirable, as tradition suggests it is so. Why?
Because the state is still here; we still have the state. That is enough to get
tradition on side for why did they not get rid of the state before if it is as
bad as the liberals say it is. It was
thought to be desirable in the past so maybe it is, on the whole, today. But only
a few philosophers, or quasi-philosophers, are willing to look at the whole and
to also explicitly vie their ideas.

Then there is the problem of practicality. Even the
LA itself is not completely an extreme anarcho-liberal group but rather it is
an alliance between anarchists and limited statists. The latter doubt if we even
can dispense with the state. Most liberals in the past have been like that,
indeed they have held that the state is basically good, but that the market can
do some things, maybe most things, better. Many LA members are still like that,
as well as nearly all the pioneers of modern liberalism since about 1500. But since
about 1700, actual anti-statist liberalism first emerged that saw the state as
evil rather than good, but still thought it a necessary evil. Tom Paine said it
was a necessary evil in Common Sense
(1776), as it was needed to deter and punish crime from those who do not
respect other people. Ideally the evil of punishment would never arise but as some
criminals are highly likely to offend, then this necessary evil will be needed
to deter them.

In the nineteenth century, some anarchist-liberals,
like Josiah Warren, emerged who greatly influenced J.S. Mill, who was a
candidate at being top economist and the top philosopher, not only in the UK
but even in the world, as well as being the top liberal in his heyday.

The LA has
all three types of liberals but not the statist neo-liberals who emerged after
1860, though the enlightenment paradigm propagandists often welcome them still
calling themselves liberals as they are critical of pristine liberalism, laissez faire but, oddly, not so often of
free trade; though both terms mean the same thing, i.e. liberty from the state,
but some authors, especially academic historians, have attempted to say there
is a difference, as they say that free trade is between nations whereas laissez faire is liberty within the nations;
they feel that means two distinct types of liberty! The neo-liberals do often
think they retain the liberal idea in their democracy, and they explicitly do
in their moral criticisms of others [indeed, in their basic morals] in being
against rape, and the like, but their rampant statism even within their democratic
ideal, shows up that they also have many delusions and inconsistencies in their
statist “liberal” creed.

Anyway, the pure liberal idea is rejected by most
people on the idea that its practicality is severely limited, especially in its
main opposition to the state.

Despite such common sense objections, liberalism
made steady progress up till the 1860s, but then, within liberalism itself,
there was a reaction. The Liberal Party never had accepted the anti-statist
meme within liberalism and when it formed a government, or an administration,
that aspect of liberalism not only seemed extreme but also quite perverse to almost
any member of the House of Commons [MP].

Many novelists and historians had earlier felt there
was more to the top Tory authors like Thomas Carlyle, his epigone Charles
Dickens, and his disciple John Ruskin who wrote against the commercial society
and the idea of free market or its utilitarian bourgeois outlook, especially the
chief utilitarian propagandist, Jeremy Bentham.
This Tory outlook was part of a wider Romantic reaction was against the
very idea of Enlightenment, that is associated with the liberal idea. J.J.
Rousseau began this Romantic reaction against the French Philosophes but soon Edmund Burke made this movement more
substantial with his attack on Richard Price and Burke soon converted many of
the 54 authors that wrote against him, like the poets Coleridge and Wordsworth,
to Romance. One result of all this was a lot of diverse propaganda that was
always effectively, if never quite explicitly, against liberty. Many in the
Liberal Party tended to agree with the MPs that more politics was needed to
counter this heartless laissez faire.
As the pristine liberal MPs got older, or died off, the switch from classical
liberalism to statist neo-liberalism was all but complete by 1900, with, maybe,
the sole exception of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.

A factor in this was the rise of the Fabian Society
from the mid-1880s onwards, that made the idea popular that socialism was to
the left of liberalism, to exploit the sense of progress that the early
pristine liberals like James Mill and Francis Place won from about 1800 on for
the liberal idea, and the Fabian had
success with this idea to the extent that, today, the modern mass media call
pristine liberal free market ideas right wing! Why? Because they oppose
statism! This very successful propaganda
group, the Fabian, followed up Joseph Chamberlain in his generational case against
Gladstone to replace pristine liberal ideas with the newer statist ones. This was
yet another clever emotional move to suggest that the future lay with statism
and imperialism.

However, in 1886 Chamberlain left the Liberal Party
over Home Rule for Ireland, but, by then, nearly all the younger MPs that he
left behind were statists. Joseph Chamberlain’s innovation of statist
neo-liberalism was home and dry. The pristine liberal idea was in abeyance till
its slow revival beginning in the 1950s, but this time mainly as a moral
movement to get the public to think seriously about anti-social politics.