Liberalism

“ In Regis arbitrio non esse privata civium bona. Non ergo aut universa aut partem decerpet nisi ex eorum voluntate, quorum in iure sunt.

[Private goods of the citizens are not at the King’s disposal. Therefore, he cannot take some or all of them without the consent of the rightful owners.]

— Juan de Mariana, 1609

“ Nach liberaler Auffassung besteht die Aufgabe des Staatsapparates einzig und allein darin, die Sicherheit des Lebens und der Gesundheit, der Freiheit und des Sondereigentums gegen gewaltsame Angriffe zu gewahrleisten. Alles, was darüber hinausgeht, ist von Übel. Eine Regierung, die, statt ihre Aufgabe zu erfüllen, darauf ausgehen wollte, selbst das Leben und die Gesundheit, die Freiheit und das Eigentum anzutasten, wäre natürlich ganz schlecht.

[As the liberal sees it, the task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and private property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil. A government that, instead of fulfilling its task, sought to go so far as actually to infringe on personal security of life and health, freedom, and property would, of course, be altogether bad.]

— Ludwig von Mises, Liberalismus, ch. I. 11 : “Die Grenzen der Regierungstätigkeit”, Verlag von Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1927 [ Liberalism In The Classical Tradition, ch. I. 11 : “The Limits of Governmental Activity”, The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington, NY, 1985 ; ]

“ La democracia responde a esta pregunta: ¿Quién debe ejercer el poder público? La respuesta es: el ejercicio del Poder público corresponde a la colectividad de los ciudadanos.

Pero en esa pregunta no se habla de qué extensión deba tener el Poder público. Se trata sólo de determinar el sujeto a quien el mando compete. La democracia propone que mandemos todos; es decir, que todos intervengamos soberanamente en los hechos sociales.

El liberalismo, en cambio, responde a esta otra pregunta: ejerza quienquiera el Poder público, ¿cuáles deben ser los límites de éste? La respuesta suena así: el Poder público, ejérzalo un autócrata o el pueblo, no puede ser absoluto, sino que las personas tienen derechos previos a toda injerencia del Estado. Es, pues, la tendencia a limitar la intervención del Poder público.

[ Democracy answers this question: Who should exercise public power? The answer is: the exercise of public power corresponds to the community of citizens.

But in that question there is no mention of what extension the public power should have. It is only a matter of determining the subject to whom the command belongs. Democracy proposes that we all rule; that is, that we all intervene sovereignly in social events.

Liberalism, on the other hand, answers a different question: whoever exercises public power, what should be its limits? The liberal answer is: public power, whether exercised by an autocrat or by the people, cannot be absolute, rather people have rights previous to any interference by the State. Liberalism is, therefore, the tendency to limit the intervention of Government power.]

— José Ortega y Gasset, “Ideas de los castillos: liberalismo y democracia”, Obras completas, Tomo II, El Espectador (1916-1934)

“ Liberalism (in the European nineteenth-century meaning of the word, to which we shall adhere throughout this chapter) is concerned mainly with limiting the coercive powers of all government, whether democratic or not, whereas the dogmatic democrat knows only one limit to government—current majority opinion. The difference between the two ideals stands out most clearly if we name their opposites: for democracy it is authoritarian government; for liberalism it is totalitarianism. Neither of the two systems necessarily excludes the opposite of the other: a democracy may well wield totalitarian powers, and it is conceivable that an authoritarian government may act on liberal principles.

— Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978 [1960], ch.7.: “Majority Rule”, pp. 103-106