#### Early Forerunners and Divergent Views
An unlikely starting point is Niccolò Machiavelli. While known for advocating strong central government, his contribution lies in three crucial insights. Firstly, an explicit anti-utopianism, best articulated by Francis Bacon's view that we should write as men do, not as they ought to do. This grounds thinking in learning from historical reality. Secondly, Machiavelli held a pessimistic view of human nature, seeing individuals as fundamentally self-interested with an unlimited appetite, easily corrupted by power. This is why he favoured republics over monarchies. Thirdly, he emphasised the importance of checks and balances; a ruler failing to balance competing forces constantly risks overthrow.
These ideas touch on a radical notion of individual Free Will, although Machiavelli himself sought to control it rather than grant it agency. Despite being controversial in his time, his practical, experience-based approach had a lasting influence.
Francis Bacon, often seen as the father of the modern scientific method, was influenced by Machiavelli, though Bacon himself was not a liberal, envisioning a utopian future ruled by enlightened experts in his unfinished work New Atlantis.
A friend of Bacon's, Thomas Hobbes, took Machiavelli's idea of self-interest to its extreme.
Hobbes famously described life in the state of nature as "nasty, brutish, and short," believing that without strong central authority, humanity would descend into a war of all against all.
His solution was a social contract where individuals surrender their rights to a sovereign authority for protection, ensuring peace and security. Hobbes argued for absolute monarchy, believing that the total number of officials needed to be minimised due to human corruptibility (judges, for instance, could be bribed by self-interest). He even suggested law must appeal solely to absolute authority, asserting the king's right to kill an innocent person. Despite this seemingly illiberal stance, Hobbes's conception of humanity was strikingly individualist and, in the state of nature, quite egalitarian, offering everyone an equal chance of survival.
In contrast, Baruch Spinoza, though often viewed as a rationalist rather than an empiricist, saw freedom as the ultimate aim of government, opposed to security or social order. Unlike Hobbes, for whom liberty was a negative needing control, Spinoza considered it the supreme end of the individual and the best political system to achieve this was Democracy. He viewed liberty itself as the absolute ethical end of human life, a sharp departure from ancient thinkers who might not have seen slavery as inherently evil. However, Spinoza believed that true freedom only comes when reason conquers the passions, and since most people are ruled by passion, the number of truly free individuals would always be limited. He stands as a figure before classical liberalism proper.
#### The Birth of Classical Liberalism with John Locke
The pivotal shift towards classical liberalism proper occurs with John Locke. Where Hobbes saw a brutish state of nature, Locke believed in Tabula Rasa, the blank slate, suggesting individuals are primarily products of their environment. He was fundamentally optimistic about the future, viewing most people as peaceful and good due to the values instilled by the church. This belief positions Locke as a father of classical liberalism and also the idea that everyone in society should have the right to education. Previously, education was a privilege of elites, even seen as dangerous by some. Locke argued that education should be provided by local parishes for a small fee, teaching basic literacy, work ethic, and even generating profit for the church.
Locke's ideas were firmly rooted in the Christian tradition, unlike Machiavelli, Hobbes, or Spinoza, who had departed from it. His theory of government is founded on natural law or natural rights, given to us by God, which define the conditions necessary to protect our lives. The most crucial of these, foundational to virtually all subsequent classical liberalism, is property rights – the right to acquire land without interference. Another essential right is liberty, which we possess because we are God's property and therefore cannot alienate it (e.g., by entering slavery or committing suicide).
For Locke, the very purpose of government is to protect these natural rights. This necessitates that the rule of law must be above any given ruler. The potentially arbitrary absolute monarch advocated by Hobbes would too easily violate these rights. Therefore, government powers must be separated. Locke identified legislative power (making laws, wielding force), executive power (enforcing laws), and federative power (foreign policy). He didn't propose a strict three-branch system, but rather that powers should be split across institutions (like the King, House of Commons, and House of Lords all needing to agree to change a law), making arbitrary rule difficult. This concept was later systematised into the familiar executive, judicial, and legislative branches by Montesquieu. Montesquieu, incidentally, was wary of the tyranny of the majority, a concern shared by the American Founding Fathers, particularly James Madison, who sought to build a system of competing factions to prevent a dominant majority from forming a tyranny.
Locke's ideas initiated a snowball effect, inspiring thinkers in France and America to reshape their societies along his lines. It is worth noting that Locke's concept of tabula rasa has been challenged by modern evolutionary biology, and his commitment to theism may not resonate with everyone today, posing issues that need consideration for maintaining a classical liberal outlook.
#### The French Tradition and its Radical Edge
Unlike Britain, which avoided absolute monarchy through events like the Glorious Revolution, France had a history of highly centralised authority under kings like Louis XIV. This contributed to the French Revolution being far more violent than the British or American revolutions, and why it quickly succumbed to tyranny despite warnings from figures like Montesquieu and Voltaire.
A key figure influencing this radical tradition is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from the skeptic/rationalist tradition (dating back to Descartes and Montaigne). Rousseau stands as a stark contrast to Hobbes. Where Hobbes saw brutal human nature and a state of perpetual war, Rousseau believed human nature was fundamentally good and innocent (The Noble Savage), corrupted by society and its artificial inequalities. He argued that society creates dependence and subservience, replacing natural equality. His radical solution was to force the general will – a new social contract that would return humanity to the equality of the state of nature. The meaning of "general will" is debated; it could be majority opinion or something everyone must agree upon. His disciple, Condorcet, believed it was chiefly majority opinion, asserting that in a large enough group, the majority is likely correct on a yes/no question. Condorcet is also notable for being an early advocate for women's rights.
Both Rousseau and Condorcet believed in the perfectibility of man. Unlike Locke, for whom education cultivated work ethic and morals, Rousseau's radical Enlightenment view held that reason alone could elevate mankind with virtually no limits to human potential. This is captured in his famous phrase, "Men are born free, but everywhere in chains." This view leads to a fully utopian belief that humans can make changes so transformative as to eliminate inequality, crime, and injustice – a vision akin to Star Trek.
By the end of the 18th century, we can identify three broad positions: the hard realism of Machiavelli and Hobbes, the moderate position of Locke and James Madison, and the utopian belief of Rousseau and Condorcet.
These positions are forerunners of later political spectrums, roughly mapping onto conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism/socialism. An element of this radical utopianism is present in the American tradition through figures like Thomas Jefferson and especially Thomas Paine, who expanded upon Locke's rights and drew on Rousseau's abstract ideas like "man is born free" and the general will tending towards public advantage.
#### The Anglo-American Tradition and the Conservative Strain
Another set of significant thinkers are those from the Scottish Enlightenment and their contemporaries, including David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke (an Irish Catholic), alongside Americans Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. These thinkers generally shared a more pessimistic view of humanity, inherited from Machiavelli and Hobbes, and rejected the rationalism of Rousseau. They were empiricists, believing in learning from experience rather than implementing untested abstract ideas based on pure reason. David Hume, for instance, saw it as folly to expect reason to control the passions and argued that abstract systems distort natural understanding of morality, echoing Machiavelli's lesson to write as men do.
Adam Smith is recognised as the father of modern economics, and his principle of laissez-faire – minimal state interference in private enterprise and markets – quickly became a de facto economic principle of classical liberalism.
Edmund Burke, often considered the father of modern conservatism, was a respected politician and Member of Parliament. He was highly critical of Rousseau and the French Revolution, engaging in a bitter feud with Thomas Paine (whose Rights of Man was a direct reply to Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France). One of Burke's absolutely crucial ideas, relevant to both classical liberalism and modern conservatism, is his generational view of the social contract.
Society is not a temporary partnership based on fleeting interests, easily dissolved. Instead, it is a partnership in all science, art, virtue, and perfection, a goal that cannot be achieved in a single generation. It is a partnership connecting the living, the dead, and those yet to be born, a clause in a "great primeval contract of eternal society." For Burke, institutions should not be arbitrarily dismantled based on momentary pleasure; such actions are the nature of despotism. This Burkean thinking, guarding against despotism, influenced figures like the Federalists and is embedded in the US Constitution. James Madison, in Federalist 51, articulates this need for checks on power: if men were angels, government wouldn't be needed, but since men govern men, government must not only control the governed but also be obliged to control itself through auxiliary precautions.
#### Summing Up the Complexity
Classical liberalism is evidently not a simple, monolithic ideology. It encompasses a variety of thinkers who disagreed profoundly on fundamental issues like human nature, the role of reason, and the purpose of government. Generally, we can identify three broad areas or tendencies:
- Conservative: Tending towards a pessimistic view of human nature, wary of rapid change and abstract ideas, emphasizing established institutions and potentially Burkean ideas of a generational social contract.
- Moderate: Rooted in Locke's optimism and emphasis on natural rights, property, and a balanced government with checks on power, wary of both absolute rule and the tyranny of the majority.
- Radical: Drawing from Rousseau's belief in human perfectibility and the general will, advocating for radical equality and potentially utopian social transformation.
The conservative and moderate positions are predominantly Anglo-American in character, favouring an emphasis on property rights, limited government, and robust checks and balances to prevent both majority tyranny and dominance by special interests. The radical tradition is more avowedly French, leaning towards the concept of the general will and having a more pronounced egalitarian character.
This rich and sometimes contradictory intellectual landscape laid the groundwork for the political developments of the following centuries. In the 19th and 20th centuries, classical liberalism would find itself challenged from the left by utilitarianism and socialism, and from the right by romanticism and paternalistic conservatism, pushing it into a defensive posture. But that is a story for another time.