The Israeli Classical Liberal Web Site
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
By Noah Nissani
Copyright 1996 -- Authorized free distribution of non-modified
copies for non-commercial purposes.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Contents:
I Introduction
II The Nomenclature Mess
III The Political Cartesian Space
IV Basic Principles
V Historical Antecedents
I INTRODUCTION
During the 18th and 19th centuries, a period characterized by
unprecedental social change and progress, Liberalism was the
prevalent ideology in Europe and America. The atmosphere of
liberty and free enterprise was conducive to rapid development of
science, technology and industry. Physics moved from Newton to
Einstein, alchemy transformed into chemistry, medicine jumped from
Hippocrates to Pasteur. Technology and industry replaced human
labor with steam and electricity, horseback and human foot with
automobiles and airplanes. Slavery, the stigma that put to shame
humankind from the beginning of prehistory, disappeared from the
Western world.
Today, following the collapse of the antiliberal ideologies that
bloodied the 20th century, the world is turning its face to this
old ideology, i.e., turning one century backward, in a return to a
lost direction. But there are many nations, including Israel, that
have nowhere to return, as they never knew what Liberalism is.
Furthermore, remnants of the totalitarian ideologies which
prevailed for so long are clearly discernible in the thinking of a
great number of people who presently proclaim themselves as
liberals. This contributes to increase of confusion about what
Liberalism really is, calling for a modern exposition of classic
ideas, adapted to the language and needs of our time. Although the
main purpose of this work is to help Israel, my country, in its
transition from Marxism to Liberalism, it is also intended to be
of interest for the general public.
II THE NOMENCLATURE MESS
You can hardly find a political label that has not had
contradictory meanings in different times and places. For example:
* "Socialism" stood in the beginning for "Liberalism with social
concern", and the earliest Socialists -- Claude Henry Comte de
Saint Simon (1760-1825) Robert Owen (1771-1858) Francois Fourier
(1772-1837) -- advocated cooperatives of farmers to improve their
ability to compete in the free market.
* Later, following the "Scientific Socialism" of Karl Marx
(1818-83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-95), "Socialism" denoted
a totalitarian ideology which maintained that private property
should be replaced by social ownership, the bourgeoisie should be
eliminated, and religion should be suppressed. The terms
"socialist" and "social-democratic" became then synonymous with
"communist", i.e., referring to a totalitarian ideology,
absolutely opposed to Liberalism.
* Later still, after Lenin changed the name of the "Russian Social
Democratic Workers' Party" to the "Communist Party", "Socialism"
came to denote a non-revolutionary variant of Marxism, related to
the Menshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Workers'
Party.
* Simultaneously, the term "Socialist" was even integrated into
the name of anti-Marxist movements, such as the "German National
Socialist Party."
* Presently, the majority of the Socialist and Social-Democratic
parties have switched from support of Marxist social ownership to
support for private ownership and free enterprise. Wherever these
parties are in power, they are attempting to privatize enterprises
which they themselves nationalized some years ago. They tend to
call themselves "liberals" despite their support for extensive
governmental intervention in areas that Liberalism classically
attributes to private activity. This obscures the meaning of
"Liberalism", and forces authentic liberals to seek alternative
labels such as "classical liberals", "libertarians", etc..
There are a number of political definitions such as Fascism,
Nazism, and Totalitarianism, which are usually used in a
deprecatory sense, that seem to have lost their specific meaning
and retain only a strong negative connotation. Consequently many
people support ideas, some of which are very attractive, without
being aware that they are affiliated with these rejected
ideologies. In the present work we will try to avoid any
evaluative connotations, limiting our concern to the field of
ideas.
III THE POLITICAL CARTESIAN SPACE
Any ideology or regime can be placed in an imaginary 3-dimensional
Cartesian space, whose axes are determined by the ideological
bipoles: Liberal-Totalitarian, Democratic-Autocratic and
Judaic-Nazi.
. . . . . . . . .Liberal
. . ³
. . ³ Nazi
. . ³ /
. . ³ /
. . ³ /
xLiberalism . 96 48 ³ /
. <ÄÄÄÄxÄÄÄxÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>
. Democratic / / / ³ Autocratic
. . / /..........x48 ³
. . / . / ³
. . / . . . . . . .x 96 ³
. . . / x (96)
. . . . ... . . ... / ³
. . .Judaic- - - - x (48)
Israel 96 x . / ³
Israel 48 x
Totalitarian
In this diagram the terms Liberal, Totalitarian, Judaic and Nazi
are used in a narrower sense than that ascribed to them currently.
The Liberal-Totalitarian axis only pertains to the division of
roles between individuals and the government: The greater the
number of functions assumed by the government, the more
totalitarian it is, and vice versa. The principles of equality and
fraternity, despite their primary significance in liberal
ideology, do not find their expression in this axis, because they
are also supported by totalitarian ideologies such as Marxism.
Given that they are fundamentals of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim
common heritage that are rejected by Nazism, they are plotted
along another axis, whose poles have been named Judaic and Nazi,
respectively.
Liberty, the first term in Jean Jacques Rousseau's (1712--78)
classical triad of liberal principles, is divided into various
subtypes, each of which finds its place on the appropriate axis.
The liberation of slaves, for example, is a natural corollary of
the principle of equality, although it was only implemented after
the Industrial Revolution, a product of free enterprise, made
slavery unnecessary. Freedom of religion, on the other hand,
results from the liberal restriction of the governmental sphere,
and political liberty depends on the democratic characteristic of
the regime.
In order to exemplify the use of the political Cartesian space, a
comparative plotting of Liberalism and the Israeli governmental
regime with the establishment of the state in 1948 and at present
(1996), is shown in Graph 1. The plotting of Liberalism is
straightforward since it clearly pertains to the Liberal,
Democratic and Judaic extremes of the respective axes. However, in
order to apply to the Israeli regime, a some explanation is
required:
* Plotting on the Liberal-Totalitarian axis:
Israel is a totalitarian state in which every aspect of the
citizen's life, from the cradle to the grave, is controlled by the
government and affiliated institutions, such as the Histadrut (the
highly politicized Israeli worker's organization) and the
Rabbinate:
a) The main branches of the economy are owned by the government
and the Histadrut. Other branches such as agricultural production
and commercialization, and public transport are monopolized by
politicized organizations with strong links to the formerly
dominant Marxist party. The narrow margin remaining for private
initiative is subject to a complex system of bureaucratic
licensing and privileges.
b) Religious legislation and tribunals of the officially
recognized religions control the issues of matrimony and divorce.
Each citizen is subject to the law and tribunal of his "official"
religion, what makes matrimony between persons of different
religions impossible . Mixed couples and those lacking a
well-defined official religion must marry abroad. The only
officially recognized branch of Judaism is Orthodox, and Jews
belonging to other branches can only be married by Orthodox
rabbis. In addition burial procedures are controlled exclusively
by recognized religious institutions, and measures to provide a
solution for burying those without an official religion have only
been introduced recently.
c) Education is controlled by the government, and only three
educational streams are recognized in the Jewish sector: state,
state-religious, and independent. Ideologically they are: Zionist
secular, Zionist religious, and non-Zionist religious,
respectively. Staff members in the first two streams are employed
by the government, and the religious orientation of the last two
streams is Orthodox. A separate education system exists in the
Arab sector.
d) Until recently, neither a constitution nor any other legal
resource limited the all-powerful Knesset (Parliament). Only in
the past few years some Basic Laws concerning citizens rights have
been enacted, allowing for some control of the Knesset by the High
Court.
Thus, the Israel regime of 1948 must be placed, in our diagram,
close to the Totalitarian end of the Liberal-Totalitarian axis.
From 1948 to 1996, the deficiencies described in clauses a) and
d) have been tempered to some extent. The leftist parties have
abandoned Marxist ideology, and free enterprise is universally
supported, at least on a theoretical level. The Histadrut has
lost some of its enterprises, and government companies are
targeted for privatization. Consequently, even though the Israeli
regime has moved toward the Liberal pole of the
Liberal-Totalitarian axis, it still remains in the totalitarian
branch.
* Plotting on the Democratic-Autocratic axis:
Since its founding (1948) Israel has enjoyed a multi-party
democratic regime. Its democracy, however, is strongly affected
by the dependence of a large share of the population on jobs
controlled by the government and the Histadrut. Furthermore, all
of the radio stations, and later the only television channel, are
government owned until recently. At the same time, the so-called
independent press, which relied on the politicized enterprises
for funding, hardly dared to criticize the government during the
first years of the State's existence. Hence, although the Israel
regime of 1948 deserves to be plotted on the Democratic branch of
the Democratic-Autocratic axis, it is still some distance away
from the Democratic end of this branch. Here again, similar to
the plotting on the Liberal-Totalitarian axis, the negative
factors described above have been tempered to some extend.
Consequently, Israel enjoys today a better democracy than in
1948, namely, it has moved to the left along the Democratic-
Autocratic axis.
* Plotting on the Judaic-Nazi axis:
Israel's Declaration of Independence ensures equal rights to all
citizens, without racial or religious discrimination. Certainly,
there is no Israeli law that formally violates this principle.
However, the unrestricted power of the Knesset has allowed for
discriminatory measures against Arabs, and non-Orthodox Jewish
sectors. Therefore, although the Israeli regime of 1948 has been
plotted on the Judaic branch of the Judaic-Nazi axis, it was
unfortunately at an appreciable distance from the end of the
Judaic branch. In its evolution from totalitarianism to
liberalism, which has already been described here, Israel has
been also moving along the Judaic-Nazi axis toward a more
satisfactory position, but still it is a certain distance away
from the Judaic extreme.
IV BASIC PRINCIPLES
Liberal ideology can be summed up by Rousseau's slogan, which
served as symbol to the liberal revolution that took place on
both sides of the Atlantic Ocean at the end of the 18th century:
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." These are also the basic tenets
of the Jewish-Christian-Muslim common heritage, which are
constantly repeated throughout the Bible. However, these
principles have been also adopted in totalitarian ideologies,
although their totalitarian meanings differ from those ascribed
to them by Liberalism. The following paragraphs will elucidate
these terms, pointing out the difference between their liberal
and totalitarian interpretations.
Bellow is a quick test that helps clarify the liberal meaning of
"Liberty." Given a choice between two alternatives, which option
is the liberal corollary of the following expressions?:
1) "Nobody can tell me what I must do."
a) Because I am free to do what I want.
b) Because I am not free to do what I want.
2) "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did
what was right in his own eyes". (Judges 21, 25) (1).
a) This description portrays a situation of caotic anarchic.
b) This description portrays an ideal free society in which
everyone does his/her duty.
The above Biblical description refers to the period of
approximately two centuries that runs from the conquest of the
Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua till the coronation
of King Saul, (app. 12th & 11th centuries BC.) According to
Biblical testimony, the people of Israel were governed at the
time by the Elders of Israel and tribal judges. These last appear
administering justice and leading the people in defensive wars
against external aggression. In other words, they fulfilled the
two major functions of a liberal government: ensuring internal
and external peace, allowing the free and undisturbed functioning
of society.
However, worried by the Philistine menace, the Elders of Israel
petitioned Samuel for a king: "Now make us a king to judge us
like all the nations." ".. and go out before us and fight our
battles." (1 Samuel, 8.) The answer of Samuel is perhaps the
oldest and best testimony in favor of Liberalism recorded by
history: "This will be the behavior of the king who will reign
over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own
chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his
chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and
captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and
reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and
equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be
perfumers, cooks and bakers. And he will take the best of your
fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to
his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your
vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will
take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young
men, and your monkeys and put them to his work. He will take a
tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will
cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for
yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day." The
Bible description of God's reaction to the Elders of Israel's
request is also very meaningful: "And the Lord said to Samuel:
Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for
they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I
should not reign over them." Thus, the Bible refers to the
liberal regime in which "everyone did what was right in his own
eyes," as the reign of God.
"Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of
being able to do what we ought." (Lord Acton 1834 - 1902). All of
us, the great majority of the people, are peaceable, honest,
law-abiding citizens who devote their lives to their family and
their civil duties. None of us does what he wants, but what he
must do, namely, "what is right in his own eyes." Therefore, it
makes no sense for somebody to tell us what to do, because we are
not free to do otherwise that what we are actually doing. On the
other hand, there is no reason to assume that the government
knows better than the citizens what is the right thing to do.
This does not mean the absence of law. On the contrary, in its
liberal sense, liberty essentially means the submission of all,
individuals and government, to the law and to the dictates of
conscience. "The law ought to be supreme over all, and the
magistracies should judge of particulars, and only this should be
considered a constitution." (Aristotle, Politics, IV, IV.)
(2). However, the law must be restricted to what is absolutely
necessary for the proper functioning of society, and must avoid
conflict with individual conscience.
Liberal freedom entails individual responsibility for one's own
welfare and for that of one's family. Totalitarians reject the
liberal notion of liberty, asserting that for the poor it means
the liberty to die of starvation. Real liberty, they say, is
liberty from misery and need. Pretending to free them from need,
they in fact transform the citizens into protected
asylum-dwellers who depend on the authorities for the
satisfaction of their needs. After the collapse of the Marxist
regimes, and in light of the misery, crime, prostitution and
ecological devastation they have left behind, the outcome of this
fallacy has become universally apparent.
In its liberal meaning, equality implies the abolition of all
birthrights that were broadly accepted in the 18th century, and
the equality of all human beings of any race, religion, or
nationality. Liberalism also demands equality of opportunity for
youth in developing their natural potential by means of
accessible adequate instruction. The liberal idea of equality
differs from its Marxist counterpart in that Liberalism accepts
that the incentives of differential retribution and private
ownership are essential to the effective functioning of society,
and that therefore, despite their being a contributing factor to
social inequality, they result in general welfare.
Fraternity, viz, solidarity between neighbors, is an individual
duty which, like responsibility for family's welfare, originates
in a natural human feeling. Although they can be regulated by
law, experience shows that both duties are voluntarily fulfilled
when there is no governmental intervention. For example, the
Buenos Aires Jewish community, which numbered approximately
300,000, maintained in the 1950s, without any state support or
external contribution, an extensive net of communal institutions
which included: A dozen educational centers (one of them with
nearly two thousand pupils from kindergarten to high school),
teacher's seminars, a center for Hebraic studies, a hospital, a
home for the aged, an orphanage, three large clubs for social
cultural and sports activities, numerous synagogues, burial
services, social and economic assistance, publishing houses, two
daily newspapers and many weekly and monthly journals, theater,
boy scout and youth organizations, Zionist and anti-Zionist
organizations. In addition to this extensive local activity, the
Zionist organizations collected considerable sums in support of
Israel.
In comparison voluntary social activity in Israel is nearly
non-existent, and even the seemingly voluntary associations such
as those of new immigrants are financed by the Ministry of
Absorption and the Jewish Agency. The cause of this seems to be
the fact that nearly all social and welfare services are provided
by the state, the Histadrut and organizations supported by Jewish
communities abroad.
Assistance to the needy is an obligation inherent in the liberal
principle of fraternity. Therefore, the point is not whether such
assistance must be provided, but whether this function can be
better fulfilled by the government than by private organizations.
We Israelis have a sad experience with government efficiency. All
of us remember, for example, the days when telephone services
were provided by the state, and how many years it took to receive
a phone line. Once this service was handed over to a company,
even if it was a monopolistic enterprise owned by the state,
there was considerable improvement (3). If this was the case when
the beneficiaries of government services emanated from the most
influential sector of society, what about services intended for
the needy? Only the hardhearted would support that the needy
deserve such inefficient treatment (4).
V HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
Highly developed liberal concepts are found in both sources of
Western civilization: The Hebrew and the Greek cultures. For
example, the Biblical discussion quoted above, in which the Elder
of Israel asks Samuel for a king, clearly involves the idea of
the "social contract" -- the original liberty voluntarily
surrendered in exchange for security provided by a central power
-- which constitutes the basis of the political philosophy of
many of the most prominent precursors of modern Liberalism:
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)(5), John Locke (1632--1704), and
Rousseau (1712-78).
The Biblical assertion that a sole couple is the common ancestor
of all human beings, and that three brothers are the fathers of
all races, constitutes the philosophical-religious basis of the
liberal principles of universal equality and fraternity.
Furthermore, equality and fraternity for all inhabitants,
citizens as well as strangers, are ones of the most repeated
Biblical commandments: "Therefore love the stranger, for you were
strangers in the land of Egypt " (Deuteronomy 10:19.) "One law
shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells
among you" (Exodus 12:49).
In addition a Biblical antecedent of religious tolerance and
legitimation of the existence of different but moral equivalent
religions is found in Micah's prophecy (8th century BC), which
foresees the adoption of the Biblical moral precepts by many
nations that have not adopted the Jewish religion: "Many nations
shall come and say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the
Lord. To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us his
ways, and we shall walk in his paths.... For all people walk each
in the name of his god. But we will walk in the name of the Lord
our God forever and ever." (Micah 4, 1 - 5.) This prophecy can be
viewed as the Biblical root of Deism, i.e., belief in a universal
God without accepting a specific revelation and dogma, which is a
form of religiosity shared by numerous liberal thinkers from
Edward Herbert Baron of Cherbury (1583--1648), Anthony Ashley
Cooper 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671--1713), Thomas Paine
(1737-1809), and Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) to Albert Einstein
(1879-1955).
An advanced liberal political philosophy is found in the Greek
classics, culminating with the scientific-philosophical work of
Aristotle (384-322 BC.), whose ideas in all fields of human
culture, from physics to ethics, have dominated Western culture
for centuries. In his book "Politics", Aristotle studied existing,
possible or even utopian regimes, and established many of the
liberal principles later formulated by Montesquieu in "The Spirit
of the Laws" (1748). Furthermore, in his approach to the issue of
common versus private ownership, Aristotle appears to be
precursor of Adam Smith: "Property should be in a certain sense
common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a
distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they
will make more progress, because every one will be attending to
his own business." (Aristotle, "Politics", II, V).
All the elements of a modern democratic government are present in
the Athenian constitution. An executive forum consisting of nine
members was headed by an Archon, a King, and a Polemarch, who
handled civil, religious, and military issues, respectively. A
legislature was composed of two houses: the Council of Areopagus
and the Council of Four Hundred. Finally, judicial power was
vested in the Law-Courts. More significantly, we see in the
Athenian constitution a definite separation of powers, which is
of the essence of any liberal regime. See Aristotle,"The Athenian
Constitution", Parts 3 & 4.
Despite the fact that the two sources of Western civilization --
Bible and Greek classics -- are clearly oriented toward
Liberalism, it did not appear in Western Europe until the 18th
century. Its appearance was the natural outcome of a series of
interrelated cultural developments that began with the
Renaissance in the 14th century:
* The Renaissance (14th-16th cent. CE) introduced classic Greek
and Roman art, scientific thinking, and philosophy into medieval
Europe. This cultural collision generated a spectacular awakening
of the European genius: Dante, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael,
Michelangelo, Brunelleschi and Shakespeare are only a few in a
large list of representatives of this luminous dawn of European
culture. Greek and Roman philosophy and democratic regimes
supplied all the political elements needed for the future rise of
Liberalism.
* Gutenberg's (1400-68) invention of the printing press opened a
new era in human history -- the Book Age. Books and newspapers
become a new and powerful medium for communication between
individuals and nations. Culture become universal, as distances
and oceans no longer obstruct expansion of ideas. Montesquieu is
more widely read in America than in France. The Bible and the
classics are now accessible to everyone. The world undergoes a
cultural revolution of unprecedented proportions.
* The religious Reformation of the 16th cent.: Criticism aroused
by the Renaissance was also expressed in the area of religion,
where Martin Luther (1483-1546), Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), and
John Calvin (1509-64) demanded the right for individual judgment
of the Sacred Scriptures. The Bible, printed and translated into
European languages, became obligatory reading for a large share
of the European and American population, which became directly
influenced by its liberal principles.
* The revolution in physics and astronomy, which began with
Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642), reaching the peak
with Newton (1642-1727). They dared to challenge religious dogma
and bimillenary Aristotle's scientific authority introducing new
freedom into the scientific thinking, which penetrated to the
philosophical, religious and political fields. They also provided
the basis for the technological developments that brought about
the industrial revolution.
* Philosophical developments in the 17th century, represented by
Descartes (1596-1650) and Spinoza (1632-77), who established a
rational basis for faith, opening the way to the advent of Deism,
and the ensuing religious tolerance espoused by most of the
founders of Liberalism in the next century.
* The Masonry, a secret international liberal organization of
uncertain origin, which emerged in London in 1717. Some of the
most influential liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries were
masons, including the three great liberators of America -- George
Washington, Jose de San Martin and Simon Bolivar. Masonry's
tradition claims that it was founded by the Phoenician builders
of Solomon's Temple, who returned from Jerusalem imbued with
liberal Biblical ideas. Its meeting sites are called "temples"
and are decorated with two columns named like the columns of
Solomon's Temple: Jachin and Boaz (2 Chronicles 3, 17.) Tools of
working masons are found between its symbols and guarded secrets.
Faith in God, the Great Architect, is a requisite for being
accepted as a member of the lodge, but no distinction whatsoever
is made between religions.
* The industrial revolution that began in Britain during the mid
of the 18th century, setting in motion a rapid transformation of
social structure, which brought on new problems that demanded new
solutions. It was initiated by the mechanical innovations
introduced in the textile industry by James Hargreaves (?-1778),
Richard Arkwright(1732-92) and Samuel Crompton (1753-1827), who
used water-stream energy to perform faster and better labor that
previously demanded human effort. At about the same time, James
Watt's (1736-1819) improvement (1769) of Thomas Savery (1698) and
Thomas Newcomen's (1712) steam engine provided man with new and
powerful sources of energy.
* Finally, the Enlightenment or Age of Reason. This philosophical
movement, which prevailed during the 18th century, advocated
rational criticism of all accepted beliefs and assumed truths. It
was against this background that Liberalism emerged, with the
scientific-philosophical works of Montesquieu (1689-1755) on
politics, Adam Smith (1723- 90) on economics, Joseph Priestley
(1733-1804) on religion and education, and numerous other
thinkers who covered all fields of human life, shaping Liberalism
its current form.
-*-*-
(1) Biblical quotations are taken from the new King James
version.
(2) Quotations from Aristotle's "Politics" are from Benjamin
Jowett's translation. "Constitution" in Aristotle's nomenclature
is what we now would denominate "Liberal Democracy", while
Aristotle's "democracy" refers to uncontrolled ruling of the
majority. The following quotations can contribute to clarifying
Aristotle's nomenclature: "whereas constitutional rule is a
government of freemen and equals." (Politics I, VII.) "In our
original discussion about governments we divided them into three
true forms: kingly rule, aristocracy, and constitutional
government, and three corresponding perversions: tyranny,
oligarchy, and democracy." (O.c. IV, II.)
(3)The press announces that in the coming months, when two new
telecommunication companies enter the market currently
monopolized by the government-owned Bezek Corporation, the price
of a call from Israel to America will be reduced from the current
rate of 3.53 to 0.62 NIS per minute, i.e., nearly 1/6 of the
current rates and even less than the cost of a call from Haifa to
Tel Aviv!!.(Haaretz, Nov 7, 96.)
(4) Bankruptcy of American federal welfare policy. The press has
recently publicized the decision of the American federal
government to transfer the welfare services to state governments.
This decision, massively supported in both houses by Democrats
and Republicans, was ratified by 328 against 101 representatives.
It was also ratified by President Clinton, who has been quoted
saying: "I will sign the law because the present welfare policy
has collapsed" (Haaretz, August 1996.) It is difficult to
understand how the state governments will be more successful in
administering welfare than the federal government was.
Furthermore, statistics show that during the last 30 years, and
concomitant with expansion of state welfare and tax increases,
the social activity of the American citizens was reduced by up to
50%. "Membership records of such diverse organizations as the
PTA, the Elks club, the League of Women Voters, the Red Cross,
labor unions,... show that participation ... has declined by
roughly 25 percent to 50 percent over the last two to three
decades." (Robert D. Putnam, "The Strange Disappearance of Civic
America", The American Prospect no. 24, Winter 1996).
We see here a case similar to the social activity of the Jews in
Israel compared to that of the Argentinean Jewish community. In
both cases a culture focusing on social concerns was destroyed by
excessive government activity. The problem is how to rebuild such
a destroyed civic culture.
(5) Hobbes has been included in order to provide a complete
perspective. However, in contrast to Locke and Rousseau, his
approach to the social-contract idea was hardly inspired by the
Biblical episode that is evoked. Furthermore, his support for
absolute sovereign would hardly enable him to be included among
the precursors of Liberalism.