Western Civ. 1-40: The Liberty of Moderns Compared with that of the Ancients

The concept of liberty has been a fundamental issue for philosophers throughout history, Benjamin Constant's "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns" provides significant insight into this debate. Constant argued that ancient liberty was characterized by political participation and direct democracy, a focus on public life and the common good, and subordination of the individual to the state. Modern liberty, on the other hand, emphasizes individual freedom and autonomy, private life and civil society, and limits on the power of the state. In this essay, the focus will be on analyzing the differences between ancient and modern liberty, the benefits and drawbacks of each, and the necessity of self-government as the final evolution of modern liberty.

To understand the differences between ancient and modern liberty, it is essential to provide historical context. Ancient liberty originated in the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome, where political participation and state sovereignty were central to the idea of liberty. Classical liberty was about a sense of community and belonging, shared purpose, and solidarity. It was marked by free and active participation in public life facilitated by the small and direct nature of the state. Men with liberty, that is to say property-owning men, had the ability to pursue politics in their own polis, and because of the scale, participation had a real effect on the community. This kind of political liberty has drawbacks, including tyranny and oppression, limited individual freedom and autonomy, and a tendency towards conformity and groupthink. Sparta and Rome serve as examples of how excessive emphasis on political freedom leleadso the decay of society through the suppression of individual rights and the growth of oppressive regimes.

Modern liberty, on the other hand, can be traced back to the Enlightenment era. It emphasizes individual freedom and autonomy, a plurality of perspectives, and the limitation of state power for the protection of individual rights. Constant was particularly concerned about the potential for mob rule in democratic societies. He argued that in large, developed states, political participation was no longer possible for the average free man. As a result, the population could become isolated, alienated, and egotistic. When individuals lose control over their own political life, they are easily tempted to make rash decisions that serve their own interests. This, in turn, could lead to the rise of demagogues who exploit the fears and prejudices of the population to gain power. Constant feared that without proper checks and balances, individualism could lead to the tyranny of the majority, the suppression of minority voices, and the erosion of social order.

One of the crucial aspects of Constant's argument is the relationship between economic liberty and political liberty. He argues that economic liberty is necessary for political liberty to exist. Without economic liberty, individuals would not have the means to exercise their political rights. In this sense, economic liberty is a precondition for political liberty. However, Constant still feared that unfettered liberty could lead to inequality, social unrest, and the erosion of social cohesion. His ideas led him to believe a compromise must be found between ancient and modern ideas, manifested in the form of a representative republic. He had no idea that modern republics would inherit all the worst qualities of both systems without any of their benefits. Fortunately, there is a way to solve this paradox.

Unfortunately, Constant doesn't take his point far enough to get us there. We are all products of our times, and he was no different. The French revolution had made him fear mob rule, and rightly so. If only he had considered his point further. Commerce promotes personal responsibility, accountability, and innovation. In the ancient world, the condition of commercial freedom was best exemplified by the city of Athens. Now, the public spiritedness that Constant was looking for relies on individual virtue. It is true that commerce nourishes one's virtue, but it is even more true that liberty makes one love one's independence. Self-government relies on true liberty, but the power of commerce enforces self-government and reduces the need for the state to provide.

Trading reduces the need for force to secure individual prosperity, but it also encourages public virtue and the love of liberty. The very basis of success in the market is not mob rule, but personal virtue. If something were not deemed socially virtuous, it would not be encouraged by the market, and the market is the purest form of democracy, producing exactly what consumersneed. Self-government solves the problem of mob rule without compromising to the barbarism of the ancients. It is the ultimate solution to the question of liberty. The importance of balancing individual freedom and social responsibility is paramount for self-government to succeed, but this is done spontaneously through the expedient market. The need for active and engaged citizenship in modern society is crucial to prevent extremists like Robespierre from taking power. Commercial liberty solves this by putting force and demagougery to the side in favor of virtue.

In conclusion, the difference between ancient and modern liberty is vast, with each system emphasizing different values and priorities. The ancient model valued political participation and the common good, while the modern model emphasizes individual freedom, autonomy, and the limitation of state power. Moderns would find lacking in ancient liberty the protection of individual rights, the plurality of opinions, and economic freedom. Modernity is often criticized for its tendency towards conformity and groupthink. However, the evolution of modern liberty towards individual freedom and autonomy is essentially progress in the human condition. Conservatives are more concerned with social consequences of progress, not progress itself. Constant's argument for a republican compromise falls flat in the face of history, but the solution lies in self-government. Market darwinism encourages social virtue, and the production of social goods. The progress of modern liberty relies on the economic power of commerce to enforce self-government and reduce the need for the state to provide. In other words, balancing individual freedom and social responsibility is the self-defeating task of the republic, but commercial liberty solves the problem of mob rule spontaneously by dismissing what society does not value. The ultimate goal is to achieve a balance between personal liberty and social cohesion, and self-government provides the best solution to this challenge.